The Ontario-based Criminal Lawyers’ Association (CLA) supports certain initiatives in the bill – such as facilitation of electronic filing of documents and remote court appearances, establishing a guilty plea inquiry procedure, and enabling Attorneys General more flexibility in intervening in private prosecutions – and does not take issue with the notion of requirin
g advance notice of expert testimony (67) However, both the CLA and the Association in Defence of the Wrongfully Convicted (AIDWYC) oppose any new restrictions on the availability of preliminary inquiries (68) These groups believe that, in addition to its principal function of
...[+++] screening out or reducing charges which the evidence does not support, the preliminary inquiry continues to perform a useful role in permitting the accused to obtain further information, assess the strength of witnesses, and generally test the strength of the prosecution’s case before trial (69) In fact, the CLA advocates enhancing the screening role of the preliminary inquiry by raising the standard for committing an accused for trial and enabling the inquiry judge to weigh evidence and exclude evidence which would not be admissible at trial (70)La Criminal Lawyers’ Association (CLA) de l’Ontario appuie certaines initiatives du projet de loi – facilitation du dépôt électronique de documents et de la comparution à distance devant le tribunal, établissement d’une procédure d’enquête relative au plaidoyer de culpabilité et plus grande possibilité d’intervention des procureurs généraux dans les poursuites privées – et ne conteste pas la notion d’exiger préavis de témoignage d’expert(67). Toutefois, et la CLA et l’Association in Defence of the Wrongfully Convicted s’opposent à toute nouvelle restriction de la possibilité d’enquêtes préliminaires(68).
