Background
At a preliminary inquiry, the parties agreed that the complainant’s evidence was admissible under s. 540(7) of the Criminal Code. They disagreed about the permissible scope of the defence’s cross-examination of the complainant.
J.L. sought to cross-examine the complainant in seven areas. The Crown submitted that only four areas were appropriate. The preliminary inquiry judge permitted cross-examination on four areas and barred it on the remaining three. J.L. sought certiorari, with mandamus in aid, in the Superior Court of Justice, which dismissed the application.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal dismissed J.L.’s appeal. It held that the preliminary inquiry judge had not made a jurisdictional error in limiting cross-examination.
Sections 537(1.01) and 540(9) of the Criminal Code gave the preliminary inquiry judge authority to manage the inquiry and determine the scope of cross-examination. Permitting questioning in four areas while refusing it in three was an exercise of that statutory authority. The court rejected the argument that every limit on cross-examination about a complainant’s allegations is necessarily a denial of natural justice.
Key Takeaways
- Preliminary inquiry judges may limit cross-examination under ss. 537(1.01) and 540(9) of the Criminal Code.
- A restriction on cross-examination does not, by itself, establish a denial of natural justice or jurisdictional error.
- Certiorari was unavailable because the preliminary inquiry judge acted within her statutory authority.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms the narrow role of judicial review in challenges to preliminary-inquiry case-management rulings. Defence counsel must show more than disagreement with a limit on questioning; the limit must amount to a jurisdictional error to support certiorari.