What is the effect of amplification on a wiretap application?

At paragraph 59, the court cautioned that: The danger inherent in amplification is that it might become a means of circumventing a prior authorization requirement. Since a prior authorization is fundamental to the protection of everyone's privacy interests, (Hunter v. Southam Incorporated, (1984) 1984 CanLII 33 (SCC), 2 S.C.R. at 145) amplification cannot not 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 in situations 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 materials. Courts must recognize (along with investigative necessity) the two principles of prior authorization and probable grounds, the verification of which may require a close examination of the information available to the police at the time of the application for a wiretap in considering the jurisprudence on amplification ...