I believe personally that it would be a good idea to do that. For instance, if we take the case of Colisée, a wiretap case, we divided the case into separate court files to make it easier to manage before the courts. We didn't want to have the trial of 101 accused before the courts at the same time. So different judges made rulings in Colisée, and theoretically it could be a situation where a judge would decide that the wiretap evidence wouldn't be admissible in one trial and a different judge could arrive at a different conclusion. So for the prosecution, it would be easier to get one judge to decide all the pre-trial motions, one being the admissibility of the wiretap evidence and admissibility of other kinds of evidence, and then we could move on with the real issue of the guilt or not of the accused.
On April 15th, 2010. See this statement in context.