R. v. Maric, 2024 ONCA 665, September 10, 2024, at paragraphs 153 and 154:

[I]t is important to note that a subfacial challenge to a warrant has to do with what the affiant knew or ought to have known: R. v. Paryniuk, 2017 ONCA 87, 134 O.R. (3d) 321, at para. 77, leave to appeal refused, [2017] S.C.C.A. No. 81. That is to say, the reviewing justice’s task is not to determine whether the allegations underlying the warrant are ultimately true – a question for trial – but rather whether the affiant had a reasonable belief in the existence of the requisite statutory grounds at the time the affidavit was sworn: Paryniuk, at para. 77; World Bank Group v. Wallace, 2016 SCC 15, [2016] 1 S.C.R. 207, at paras. 121-23. In performing this task, it is crucial that the reviewing justice keep in mind the important distinction between the affiant’s knowledge and the knowledge of others involved in the investigation, and that, unless something is amiss, the affiant is entitled to rely on information received from other investigators: World Bank Group, at para. 123; R. v. Ahmad, 2020 SCC 11, [2020] 1 S.C.R. 577, at para. 82.

At a Garofoli hearing, erroneous information will only be excised when the affiant knew or ought to have known that the information relied upon was wrong: R. v. Lising, 2005 SCC 66, [2005] 3 S.C.R. 343, at para. 41; R. v. Phan, 2020 ONCA 298, 387 C.C.C. (3d) 383, at paras. 51-52. And, again, an affiant can rely on information provided by other investigators. As explained by Cromwell J.A., as he then was, in R. v. Morris, 1998 NSCA 229, 134 C.C.C. (3d) 539, at p. 568, amplification of evidence “is admissible to explain non-deliberate errors or omissions on the review provided that the information was known to the police officers involved in obtaining the warrant at the time it was obtained.” Said otherwise, unless inaccurate information is included in a deliberate attempt to mislead the issuing justice, the reviewing justice may amplify the ITO. An example of the proper use of amplification is found in R. v. Araujo, 2000 SCC 65, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 992, where the Supreme Court held that where an affiant misattributes information from two confidential informants, the proper remedy was to correct the misattribution, not to excise the information given that there was no deliberate attempt to mislead: Araujo, paras. 7, 56, 59 and 61. A reviewing justice has broad discretion when deciding whether to excise or amplify: R. v. Duncan, 2021 ONCA 673, at para. 14. And, as with any other discretionary decision, just because, as an appellate court, we might have exercised our discretion differently (by excising and not amplifying) does not mean appellate intervention is warranted: R. v. Feizi, 2022 ONCA 517, at para. 11.