My reflections are that he was talking about the law office that was being searched—so like your home. I think that language was about those sorts of things. You need to be doing those intrusive searches with that logic model. R v. Chehil is a more recent Supreme Court of Canada case that talks about suspicion.
You have it right. It is the debate around probability versus possibility. Again, if it assists you in any way, it's about the nature of the intrusion. You really want that higher standard—everything you read—when somebody is in your home.
However, a lower standard does exist in the Criminal Code for all sorts of different investigative techniques. In Chehil, it was a search using a sniffer dog on bags. Again, no warrant was required, but they're allowed to use that when they reach “reasonable grounds to suspect”. It is a concept in the criminal law, and it's to be used in less intrusive types of situations.
I don't know if you have any reflections.