[11] The specific question in the present appeals is whether the temporal application of the amendment to section 535 is strictly prospective or also retrospective. Although the answers in various courts have been mixed, and sometimes irreconcilable, this question is raised in this court for the first time by these appeals. The Court’s answer is limited to the temporal effect of the amendment to section 535 and does not consider the effect of other amendments enacted by Bill C-75. […]

[36] There is no question that at the time of the alleged offences both of the appellants were entitled to a preliminary inquiry into an offence bearing a maximum sentence of ten years. There is equally no question that at the date of their first appearances and on 18 September 2019 that entitlement remained for the same reason. The only question is whether the entry into force of the amended section 535 on 19 September 2019 could deprive them of that entitlement.

[37] In my view the appellants’ entitlement to request a preliminary inquiry was not removed because they requested it only after 19 September 2019; the entitlement was established both at the time of the alleged offence and at the time of their appearances in the Court of Quebec. This is clear in section 535 itself, which begins: “If an accused who is charged with an indictable offence….” These words point unmistakably to the moment of charging as the moment at which the entitlement to a preliminary inquiry, which arises upon the commission of the alleged offence, is fully vested in the accused. Even in the absence of a formal request for an inquiry, the entitlement to it was confirmed by their appearance in court in answer to the charge. The effect of that appearance was to confirm their right of election as to mode of trial and, with that election, their rights to the procedural incidents that accompany the election – including the opportunity to request a preliminary inquiry. The fact that they did not formalise their election or that request until after 19 September 2019 in no way diminishes their established, acquired, accruing or vested entitlement to make it or to have the inquiry. To suggest otherwise is to eviscerate the election of its content, which could not be done without imperilling a variety of entitlements, including their right to a jury trial.

[39]  In short, the entitlement to a preliminary inquiry is established by the state of the law at the date of the commission of the alleged offence. It is contingent on the formulation of the charge or charges in the information on which they first appeared. It is not contingent on anything said or done later by the prosecution or defence, at the first appearance or subsequent election and request, either before or after the date that the amendment came into force. It is not contingent on the date of the charge, the date of the election or the date of the request for a preliminary inquiry. It follows that the amendment can only have prospective application to indictable offences with a maximum of less than fourteen years that were allegedly committed after 19 September 2019. It also follows that the entitlement would be equally valid and vested if the appellants had been charged and had appeared only after 19 September 2019. […]