In fact, the provision contains an ambiguity. As drafted, the provision could give rise to two possible interpretations. Once the co-accuseds choose to be tried in different official languages, a bilingual trial would automatically be ordered. That interpretation is possible.
What we are suggesting is consistent with the case law, which recognizes that the judge has the discretion to evaluate, on one hand, the language rights of the accuseds, and on the other, the interests of justice. Does holding two separate trials serve the interests of justice? The two interests at stake have to be weighed. That's what the case law says. Since the main purpose of the bill is to codify the current case law, subsection 530(6) should maintain that judicial discretion as per the current case law. It's just a matter of clarifying what we believe to be the legislator's intent.