The accused applicant sought extraordinary relief to quash a preliminary inquiry into a sexual assault charge and have it recommence before a different judge.
The applicant argued the preliminary inquiry judge created a reasonable apprehension of bias by expressing a tentative view on the sufficiency of the evidence and then continuing the inquiry as a discovery in his absence.
The Superior Court granted the application, finding that while expressing a tentative view alone does not create bias, proceeding as a discovery immediately afterward gave the appearance of a firm view.
Furthermore, the court held that under the Criminal Code, a preliminary inquiry judge must be present to hear the evidence and cannot allow the inquiry to proceed in their absence without consent.
