I know very little about the facts of the Montreal case, but what I do know indicates that there certainly is a viable defence. Whether it's a winnable defence, I have no clue. But it struck me at the outset that there was a certain viability that probably stems from the no-knock warrants, which we are so fond of using. I won't get into that.
In answer to your question, I don't think the onus alone is going to affect the outcome.