43, the Crown conceded that this breached s. 8. The amplification
evidence did indicate, however, Spencer was not the law when
Cst. MacDonald drafted the ITO. The trial judge indicated that if
this had been the only s. 8 breach, she would not have excluded
the evidence found at the appellant’s home. However, she found
the following additional deficiencies with the ITO, all of which
could not be cured by amplification:
(1) Cst. MacDonald failed to verify the information in the
NCMEC Report for accuracy;
(2) Cst. MacDonald failed to include a “disclaimer” in the ITO;
(3) Cst. MacDonald failed to confirm Microsoft’s use of
(4) There was a time discrepancy on the face of the NCMEC
(5) The ITO was premised on indefinite and stale information;
(6) The fruits of the N. search undermined the reasonable
grounds to search the appellant’s residence.
 I will review the trial judge’s basis for making these
findings later in these reasons.
 The trial judge allowed the appellant’s application to
exclude the evidence. She concluded that the issuing justice was
misled as to the reliability of the information in the NCMEC
Report. There was no reliable and credible evidence connecting
the appellant’s IP address to any criminal activity, and only the
possibility of evidence being found at the appellant’s residence.
There was no basis on which the warrant could issue. Cst.
MacDonald displayed careless behaviour and a careless attitude.
At best, he exaggerated the existence of reasonable grounds to
believe that evidence of the offence would be found at the
appellant’s residence at the time the warrant was executed.
(2) Decision of the summary conviction appeal judge
 The summary conviction appeal judge (the “SCAJ”)
concluded the trial judge erred in law and made palpable and
overriding errors of fact.
 The trial judge first erred in law by reasoning “that,
absent verification by the [Cst. MacDonald], the information in
the NCMEC CyberTipline Report was not reliable evidence for
the issuing [justice] to consider”. The trial judge’s second error of
law was substituting her own views on whether a search warrant