The applicants sought an order in the nature of certiorari to quash their committal to stand trial on a charge of production of Ephedrine.
They argued the preliminary hearing judge exceeded his jurisdiction by finding the added count arose from the same transaction as the original charges and by finding sufficient evidence for committal.
The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, holding that the preliminary hearing judge correctly applied the 'same transaction' rule under s. 548(1)(a) of the Criminal Code and properly assessed the circumstantial evidence in determining there was sufficient evidence to commit the applicants to trial.
