The language in paragraph 25.1(9)(b) is probably not bad, as such language goes. It sets out three exceptions, where an act or omission is necessary to:
(i) preserve the life or safety of any person,
(ii) prevent the compromise of the identity of a public officer acting in an undercover capacity, of a confidential informant or of a person acting covertly under the direction and control of a public officer, or
(iii) prevent the imminent loss or destruction of evidence of an indictable offence.
Those would all seem to be reasonable reasons to proceed without prior authorization, providing that what is done is within what the act permits to be done.