Can misleading information be saved if it is corrected in evidence?

The cases make it clear that misleading information may, in effect, be saved if it is corrected in evidence, provided there was no deliberate attempt to mislead, a process referred to as ‘amplification’. In Auraujo, LeBel J. also urged caution with respect to amplification: The danger inherent in amplification is that it might become a means of circumventing a prior authorization requirement. Since prior authorization is fundamental to the protection of everyone’s privacy interests (Hunter v. Southam Inc., supra, at p. 160), amplification cannot go so far as to remove the requirement that the police make their case to the issuing judge, thereby turning the authorizing procedure into a sham. On the other hand, to refuse amplification entirely would put form above substance where the police had the requisite reasonable and probable grounds and had demonstrated investigative necessity but had, in good faith, made some minor, technical error in the drafting of their affidavit material. (para. 59)