That's a very good question.
Generally speaking, the defence bar have generally accepted the broad recommendations that Professor Code and I made, some of them with considerable reservation. But, yes, I think there's general acceptance.
What we say in our report is that the person actually presiding at the trial may revisit the ruling if there is evidence, clear evidence, that is now available and/or before the court that wasn't before the motions judge who heard it. So that's one thing we say.
We also say that there are some things like, for instance, in my view, similar fact evidence.... I always found that difficult to rule on until you had a sense of the trial. I never liked similar fact evidence, I almost never let it in, but that's quite aside. But you have to have a bit of a flavour, maybe even the confession, if there's a confession that there's a wish to introduce. But for things like wiretaps, searches and seizures, there should be nothing that arises in the trial that isn't available pretrial. That can help speed up resolution of cases so much. If the wiretaps go in, you end up often getting a lot of pleas of guilty; if the wiretaps go out, you often end up with the crown withdrawing charges.
So we see not much, if any, downside, and we would have the flexibility that the trial judge would have the discretion to revisit it, but only if it was clearly on different and new evidence available.