application must “make full and frank disclosure of material
facts”: Araujo, at para. 46 (emphasis in original).
 Cst. MacDonald agreed the “disclaimer” should have been
included in the ITO to ensure disclosure was full, fair and frank,
but testified he did not consider the statements material. The
ITO did state that NCMEC acts as a “clearing house” of information, which is the import of the statement in the header. He
offered his opinion that the footer was included to protect
NCMEC itself from criminal responsibility.
 The trial judge rejected the notion the “disclaimer”
attempted to protect NCMEC from criminal responsibility. The
trial judge pointed out that Cst. MacDonald never confirmed with
NCMEC what the “disclaimer” meant. The trial judge found that
on a common sense reading of the “disclaimer”, it was “a warning
to whoever comes into possession of this report, that it is in
essence a tip” (emphasis added). The trial judge found by not
including the “disclaimer” in the ITO, “the [issuing justice] was
misled in respect of the reliability of the information he was
acting upon” (emphasis added).
The SCAJ’s conclusion
 The SCAJ concluded that the trial judge made a palpable
and overriding error in finding that the failure to include the
“disclaimer” misled the issuing justice. He explained [at para. 105],
“when properly considered, the [d]isclaimer was not material and
had no effect on the reliability on the material facts necessary for
the issuing justice to determine whether reasonable and probable
grounds existed to issue the search warrant”.
 I agree.
The trial judge’s errors
 The first statement reflects what Cst. MacDonald included
in the ITO and repeated in his testimony: namely, NCMEC acts
as a “clearing house” of information. This is made clear by
considering the statement in context.
 The header begins by reciting NCMEC’s establishment in
1984, and states pursuant to its mission and congressional
authorization, NCMEC operates the Cyber Tipline “to assist law
enforcement in identifying victims of child pornography and
child sexual exploitation”. It states that NCMEC “works with
the law enforcement” and Electronic Service Providers “to
reduce the distribution of child sexual exploitation images and
videos over the Internet”. Then, the header states what the trial
judge described as the first part of the “disclaimer”: “NCMEC
does not investigate and cannot verify the accuracy of the