After questioning, you can order the transcript to use it as evidence in court.

The application must be accompanied by any document that the applicant intends to produce as evidence.

The application must be accompanied by any document that the applicant intends to produce as evidence.

(b) to produce in evidence at an inquest documents and things specified by the coroner,

(b) to produce in evidence at an inquiry such documents and things as the commission may specify,

(b) to produce in evidence at an oral or electronic hearing documents and things specified by the tribunal,

I think replacing “adduce” with “intends to introduce into evidence” would clarify, and it would be consistent with the subsequent application, which is all about assessing admissibility.

Instead of “adduce”, would you like to see language such as “and which the accused intends to introduce into evidence”, or could that whole phrase between the em dashes be removed entirely?

At this point, accused persons will not have had the opportunity to learn what evidence the prosecution intends to adduce.

There are practically no prohibitions as regards the evidence the prosecution can lead to show cause why the detention of the accused in custody is justified.

The thing currently in proposed subsection 278.92(1) that triggers the application is the defence intent to adduce into evidence.