The parties in both these appeals agree that there was no
inducement and thus the issue of whether Mr. Williams and
Mr. Ahmad were entrapped should be determined under the first
category. More specifically, at trial, both cases were principally
argued on the basis of whether the police had a reasonable suspicion that Mr. Ahmad and Mr. Williams were already engaged in
criminal activity when the police presented them an opportunity
to commit an offence.
 In Mr. Williams’ case, the trial judge found that the police
did not have reasonable suspicion that he was involved in drug
trafficking when they provided him the opportunity to commit an
offence by saying “I need 80”.
 The trial judge reasoned that the police were allowed to
investigate the tip by calling the number and engaging Mr. Williams in conversation. They could not, however, give him an
opportunity to commit a crime until they had formed a reasonable suspicion that he was engaged in selling drugs. In the
trial judge’s view, D.C. Canepa’s request to purchase a specific
quantity of drugs amounted to an opportunity and was made in
the absence of a reasonable suspicion that Mr. Williams was
engaged in selling drugs. As a result, he had been entrapped and
was entitled to a stay of the drug-related charges.
 In Mr. Ahmad’s case, in contrast, the trial judge found
that he had not been entrapped. The trial judge explained that
it was a legitimate first investigative step for the police to call
Mr. Ahmad based on the information from the tipster. The fact
that he did not deny being Romeo or query the name was significant and permitted the police to proceed in the conversation.
Confirmation that Mr. Ahmad was a drug dealer and reasonable
suspicion was formed when he asked “What do you need?” in
response to D.C. Limsiaco’s question “Can you help me out?”
Importantly, this occurred before any opportunity to sell drugs
was given. As a result, there was no entrapment.
 Consistent with this court’s decision in R. v. Ralph, 
O.J. No. 13, 2014 ONCA 3, 313 O.A.C. 384, at para. 32, leave to
appeal to S.C.C. refused  S.C.C.A. No. 262, the trial judges
in both these cases were attentive to the words used and the
sequence of the conversation in determining whether Mr. Williams and Mr. Ahmad had been entrapped. As Rosenberg J.A.
observed in Ralph, “[t]he exact words of the telephone conversation are important” (para. 2).
 The trial judges further recognized that the reasonable
suspicion requirement distinguishes between whether the language police use constitutes a mere investigative step, which is
permissible absent reasonable suspicion, or an opportunity to