What is the current state of the law on amplification of a wiretap application?

In para. 59, the court cautioned that: [t]he 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 Inc., [1984 CanLII 33 (SCC), [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145]), 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 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 material. 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…