Certiorari from preliminary inquiry

There seems to be an evolution in the way the Courts deal with reviews of a preliminary inquiry.  The test used to be that the preliminary inquiry magistrate could engage in no weighing of evidence.  The only question was to ask if there was some evidence that could support a conviction – in the old language “was there evidence that would allow a reasonable jury, mindful of its oath, to convict?”  More recent caselaw seems to allow for weighing of evidence to a greater degree – today’s decision in R. v. Pring, 2010 ONCA 231 seems consistent with that evolution:

[1]              This is an appeal from Dunnet J.’s decision on a certiorari application wherein she refused to quash the decision of the preliminary hearing judge not to commit the respondent for manslaughter.

[2]              We see no error in the decision of Dunnet J. The preliminary inquiry judge applied the correct test and made no jurisdictional error in concluding that a reasonable jury properly instructed could not draw a reasonable inference that Mr. Pring committed the offence on the record before him.

[3]              We disagree with the submission of the Crown that the preliminary inquiry judge chose between reasonable inferences that either Mr. Pring or Mr. Molina committed the offence. Rather, he concluded that the inference that Mr. Pring committed the offence was not a reasonable one.