How have the courts treated evidence obtained from an informant who had been associated with the investigating officers?

10 The trial judge reserved his decision until the following day, at which time he ruled that all of the evidence seized pursuant to the search warrant would be excluded. After reviewing the principal submissions of counsel, he set out the reasons for his conclusion: I have read all the material given to me and considered the submissions so ably made by counsel. I have concluded and I find that the warrant herein was issued on material provided exclusively by an informant who, for at least two years prior, had been associated with the investigating officers, an informant who had been paid for his services in the past. I find that the officers cannot do through this person, in his capacity as an agent, that which they could not do themselves. In the circumstances of this particular case, I find the information supplied by the informant similar to that obtained by the perimeter search in Regina v. Grant and the rights of the accused under section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms violated. I find that the invasion of the privacy of a citizen's residence a grave violation and to allow in evidence obtained thereby would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. For these reasons, and distinguishing Regina v. Taker, which showed no evidence of entry into a residence, I exclude the evidence obtained by the warrant herein. (emphasis added)