For the Chehil case, if it helps in any way, here's some of the language. The police officer had to have objectively discernible facts before a judge, setting out the connection to the criminal activity, with more than a mere hunch or an intuition, but less than a probability, and there had to be a logical connection between the facts and the offence, assessed through the totality of the circumstances.
Here is something that is really important. I want to underscore what the officer said, which is that a police officer may draw on their training and experience—they do that—when they're setting out these warrants. Again, what we're talking about as it relates to subscriber information is still a warrant before a judge. Based on their training and experience, those facts may mean different things. Something that the Supreme Court of Canada specifically said was that they rely on that training and experience in that threshold.