Yes, I would agree with this. Currently, the restriction here is very intentional to ensure that we are better protecting the dignity and privacy interests of a complainant and that access is not granted too early to a more limited evidentiary record.
There's a very well-intentioned amendment here, I imagine, to expand this, because there are times, especially in remote and northern communities, when it is difficult to get that trial judge assigned, but jurisdictions across the country have found appropriate workarounds to ensure that trial judges can be assigned earlier, in some cases, to make these rulings.