Does s.536.5 Agreements between the parties to a direct indictment interfere with the adjudicative role of the court that will try the accused?

In British Columbia v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd., supra, Major J. made the point, at para. 47, that even where the core elements of judicial independence exist and are reasonably seen to exist, there can still be interference with the judicial role. Once the core features of judicial independence are found to be present, the question remains whether the court is free to perform its adjudicative role (pages 47-55). As I have indicated, preferral of a direct indictment does not interfere with the adjudicative role of the court that will try the accused. The adjudicative role of the preliminary hearing judge was not tampered with. The proceedings before the preliminary hearing judge simply came to an end by virtue of the exercise of a long recognized core prosecutorial discretion to commence and to terminate proceedings. 4. Section 577 must be “Read Down” to Accommodate s.536.5 Agreements