What is the test for recusal from an ex-parte hearing on allegations of confidential informer privilege?

The application for recusal was dismissed. The application judge ruled that the ex parte hearing constituted part of the trial at which the appellants had a prima facie right to be present, but that the exclusion of the appellants was consonant with the procedure outlined in Named Person v. Vancouver Sun, 2007 SCC 43, [2007] 3 S.C.R. 253, to be followed where a question of informer privilege arises. In the course of his ruling, the application judge also noted that his decision respecting confidential informer status was subject to review, stating: At the conclusion of the hearing, I ruled that the two individuals were prima facie confidential informers. I did so on the basis that their status, decided ex parte, could later be revisited during the subsequent editing process of the Information to Obtain the wiretap authorization, and still later on the Garofoli hearing as part of a s. 8 Charter motion.