Thank you very much.
I greatly appreciate the testimony of all three of our witnesses and the perspective each of you has offered.
I have only one question and it'll be aimed at Mr. Trudell. My gut reaction when this issue came before the House of Commons was that I want to do my part to make sure, to the extent possible, that all bail decisions are made with full information. I think everyone agrees on that much.
My concern is arose when I started to think about the potential implications of this policy from my own background in commercial litigation. I've had colleagues before show up in court where the rules required, as a mandatory feature of the application, that they introduce affidavit evidence in support of that application. When you try to make an application without that evidence, the judge is required to dismiss the application and the person who bears the burden of proof has their application rejected.
I have no background in criminal law, so I'm looking for your opinion to inform my own open mind. My concern is if the crown were to show up and simply make a mistake. I think whether it's mandatory or not, a mistake will happen at some point again; we can't legislate against negligence. In the event this inevitable mistake happens again, will the judge be required to let the person go, who should otherwise be kept, for failure on the crown's part to discharge the burden of proof?