the majority explains, at para. 75, that “the police are not required
to investigate the reliability of a source before embarking on
a phone conversation” and that “reasonable suspicion may also
be developed in the course of the phone call, such as when the
person who answers the call confirms the source’s information”.
The fact that the source’s information about Jay was confirmed
in the course of the phone call was used to find reasonable suspicion with respect to the phone line, but was not considered when
assessing whether there was a reasonable suspicion with respect
to Mr. Williams, even though it would have been equally relevant
to that analysis.
 A similar concern arises in the analysis of Mr. Ahmad’s
case. The trial judge found that a reasonable suspicion that
Mr. Ahmad was already engaged in criminal activity was formed
when he asked “What do you need?” in response to D.C. Limsia-
co’s question “Can you help me out?” Although my colleagues
rejected this conclusion, they later refer to the very same lan-
guage, at paras. 77 to 78, in finding that the undercover officer
reasonably suspected that the phone line was being used in
a dial-a-dope scheme:
. . . D.C. Limsiaco asked “you can help me out?”, a common phrase used to
request drugs. The person responded “what do you need?”, another common
phrase in the drug trade to ask what kind of drugs a buyer wants. . . .
. . . While the person who answered the call did not confirm he was Romeo,
the name provided in the tip, he did not question the name. Moreover,
he engaged in a conversation with an apparent stranger, using coded language familiar to the drug trade. Based on the totality of the circumstances, I find that the police had reasonable suspicion that the phone line was
being used in a dial-a-dope scheme and were therefore engaged in a bona
These facts equally apply to a finding that there was a reasonable
suspicion with respect to Mr. Ahmad’s involvement in crime.
 It is also my view that the information obtained by the
undercover officers later on in their conversations with Mr. Williams and Mr. Ahmad further solidified their reasonable suspicions.
In particular, Mr. Williams and Mr. Ahmad’s responses to the officers’ statements that they needed “80” and “two soft” suggested
that Mr. Williams and Mr. Ahmad were already involved in the
drug trade, and neither of these statements by the officers constituted the giving of an opportunity to commit an offence.
 In arriving at this conclusion that the officers’ statements
did not amount to offers to purchase drugs, I follow the reasoning
in two decisions of this court: R. v. Imoro,  O.J. No. 586,
2010 ONCA 122, 264 O.A.C. 362, affd  3 S.C.R. 62,