Is the order of a trial judge dispensing with a jury during the course of the trial consistently treated as an exercise of the exercise of his discretion?

I have quoted from the above judgments, and there are many others containing expressions to the same effect, for the purpose of indicating that the order of a trial Judge dispensing with a jury during the course of the trial is consistently treated as the exercise of a discretion vested in him by the statute. There may be cases in which the order could be shown to have been made otherwise, as for example if the Judge in his reasons made it clear that he had discharged the jury only because he had erroneously decided that he was bound as a matter of law to do so. Logan v. Wilson, 1943 CanLII 388 (SCC), [1943] 4 D.L.R. 512, was a case of this sort.