Yes, I think you have to look at the context of the provision as a whole. Certainly, the rule of interpretation is what is plainly meant by the language in the provision. So if you read the provision within the clause as a whole, I think it is fairly obvious that it's not intended to imply one or the other. The word “or” is often used in the Criminal Code to provide choices, and if you read it so that it says clearly that you can do this or you can do that, but not both—they have to be mutually exclusive—there would have to be some other language to indicate that.
Certainly, as we read the provision and the motion, the court could do one or the other, or both.