On a thirty-count indictment dated December 22, 2020, the accused, Ms. Danielle Deanne Hess and Mr. Sebastiano Vince Profetto, were charged with a variety of drugs and weapons offences.
 The accused brought a number of applications. In particular, they challenge the search warrant that led to the charges. They apply for an order finding that their rights guaranteed under s. 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms8 to be free from unreasonable search and seizure have been violated and for an order pursuant to s. 24(2) of the Charter excluding from admission into evidence at trial all evidence that was obtained by the police as a result of the alleged breach of their Charter rights.
 As Mr. Pollock for the Crown observed, counsel for the accused and counsel for the Crown more or less agree on the factual narrative and relevant chronology for present purposes.
 That said, I think it important to highlight some background context.
 The critical events in question date back to June 2019.9
 The charges before the court initially arose out of a broader investigation of drug trafficking in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) conducted by the Toronto Police Service (TPS), which was named “Project Oz.”
 The main target of Project Oz was one Mr. Christopher Janisse, who resided in the City of Toronto and was believed to be a high-level drug trafficker.
 The charges in Windsor arose after certain surveillance activity was conducted by TPS officers on June 4, 2019. On that day, TPS officers observed Mr. Janisse exit the underground parking garage associated with his residence in Toronto, driving his black Mazda motor vehicle. TPS officers followed Mr. Janisse’s vehicle as he travelled from Toronto to the Town of Tilbury, a community in the Municipality of Chatham-Kent, about 50 km. east of Windsor.
 On that same June 4th day, while in Tilbury, TPS officers observed Mr. Janisse having some apparent interactions with a female driver of a red-coloured, Ford pickup truck. TPS officers then followed the red Ford pickup as it travelled to Windsor and ultimately parked at the residential premises municipally known as 372 Crawford Avenue in Windsor.
 Police subsequently formed the belief that the female driver observed driving the red Ford pickup and attending the 372 Crawford Avenue residence was Ms. Hess.
 On the morning of Thursday, June 27, 2019, various WPS officers were briefed by Sgt. Gannon of the DIGS Unit.
 The officers were advised that TPS authorities had obtained a search warrant issued on June 27, 2019, pursuant to s. 11 of the CDSA, which had been obtained on the basis of an information to obtain (ITO) sworn June 26, 2019, for the search of the residential premises at 372 Crawford Avenue and the red Ford pickup associated with Ms. Hess, who was identified as a target. The officers were also advised that Ms. Hess was associated with a Mr. Sebastiano Profetto. It was believed that ESU should be involved because of previous dealings of the WPS with Mr. Profetto.
 The assembled officers were advised by Sgt. Gannon, by way of the TPS officers, that they had grounds to arrest for conspiracy to commit indictable offence, possession of proceeds obtained by crime, and possession of a controlled substance for the purpose of trafficking. However, on the evidence of P.C. Pope, it was made clear to the officers that, at that point, they had no grounds to arrest Mr. Profetto.
 … Ms. Hess was arrested on scene at the convenience store at 5:18 p.m.
 As a result of the execution of the CDSA search warrant at the 372 Crawford residence, WPS officers discovered and seized a number of items that form the subject-matter of the charges before the court.
 Pursuant to a residential lease agreement dated March 25, 2018, the residential premises at 372 Crawford Avenue were leased to Mr. Profetto and one Amanda Lee Martin. Ms. Hess is not named in the lease. Ms. Martin took no part in the instant proceeding.
 An arrest warrant was subsequently executed on Mr. Profetto.
Were the accused denied their rights to be free from unreasonable search and seizure under s. 8 of the Charter?
 Or, as stated most recently by our Court of Appeal in R. v. Jones:
To issue a warrant under s. 11(1) of the CDSA, the ITO’s contents must satisfy the authorizing justice that there are reasonable grounds to believe an offence has been committed and that evidence of that offence will be found at the place to be searched. The ITO need not conclusively establish the commission of an offence nor the existence of relevant evidence. “Reasonable grounds” is a standard of credibly-based probability [citation omitted.] The authorizing justice is permitted to draw inferences, so long as the inferences of criminal conduct and recovery of evidence are reasonable on the facts disclosed in the ITO [citation omitted].14
 In reviewing an ITO, the following principles must also be borne in mind:
a. The ITO must be read as a whole.15
b. A reviewing court’s analysis of the evidence should be contextual as opposed to piecemeal.16
c. The ITO must be read in a common-sense manner, having regard for its author. Police officers are not legal draftspersons and should not be held to that standard.17
d. The issuing justice is entitled to rely on affiant opinions.18
e. Officer training and experience may be relevant in determining whether the requisite legal standard for a search has been met.19 However, courts are not required to uncritically accept or defer to a police officer’s conclusion just because it is grounded in their experience and training.20
f. “That an item of evidence in the ITO may support more than one inference, or even a contrary inference to one supportive of a condition precedent, is of no moment.”21
g. Reasonable grounds must be assessed based on the totality of the circumstances, including the nature of the police investigation.22
 For present purposes, the relevant provisions of the ITO include the following:
a. In para. 3 of the ITO, D.C. Wilson identifies six persons, including Mr. Janisse and Ms. Hess, who, he says in para. 5, “have all been seen meeting with JANISSE and engaging in behaviour that is consistent with drug trafficking.”
b. Paragraph 3 of the ITO does not list Mr. Profetto.
c. In para. 3(a) of the ITO, D.C. Wilson indicates that the residential address of Ms. Hess is 636 Hildegarde Street, Windsor, Ontario.
e. In para. 42 of the ITO, D.C. Wilson sets out the observations made on June 4, 2019, when Mr. Janisse travelled to Tilbury and encountered a female person believed to be Ms. Hess, as I have referenced above.
g. In paras. 42(c) and (d), D.C. Wilson states that:
At approximately, 2:00pm, JANISSE met with an unknown female, later identified as Danielle HESS born December 8, 1969, who was driving a Ford truck bearing Ontario license plate AZ98201. JANISSE and HESS travelled in their respective vehicles in tandem around several side streets and dead-end streets before stopping on Young Street.
At that time, JANISSE retrieved a weighted black duffle bag from the passenger side of his Mazda and placed it in the rear passenger seat of HESS’ truck. At the same time, HESS retrieved a brown cardboard box approximately 2’x2’x2’ in size from the rear driver’s side area of her truck and handed it to JANISSE. JANISSE took the cardboard box and attempted to put it into the trunk of his Mazda but the box would not fit so JANISSE placed the box in the rear passenger area of his Mazda. JANISSE and HESS then parted ways.
h. D.C. Wilson added, intra alia, the following commentary after para. 42(d):
[In my experience as a drug investigator, mid-to-high level drug traffickers need and rely on bags to move/traffic their illicit substances. Bags can conceal and transport large amounts of drugs and/or money without attracting attention. Furthermore, the meetings and visits which have been short in duration are consistent with illicit behaviour (such as drug trafficking).]
i. In paras. 42 (e) and (f), D.C. Wilson recounted how the surveillance followed Ms. Hess to Windsor, as follows:
Surveillance was continued on HESS in the Ford truck who attended the Windsor area. HESS was misplaced for a short period of time, and once relocated, was followed to a house located [at] 372 Crawford Avenue, Windsor.
HESS met with an unknown male later identified as Sebastiano PROFETTO born November 10, 1988, and the two attended the rear area of the residence.
j. In paras. 42(g) to (l) of the ITO, D.C. Wilson reviewed certain observations, which he then summarized in para. 90 of the ITO as follows:
Surveillance was continued on HESS and she was later observed meeting with an unknown male which was consistent with a street level drug transaction – based on her driving behaviour (circling the neighbourhood), waiting for 15 minutes for an unknown male that got into her passenger seat, drove that unknown male two blocks away and then let him out of her vehicle.
k. In para. 92 and again in para. 163, D.C. Wilson noted that Ms. Hess has two drug- related convictions, which date back to March 2012.
m. In para. 169, D.C. Wilson concludes that, “[b]ased on the information contained above, I believe that I will locate the items set out in Appendix “A” [i.e., controlled drugs, trafficking materials, proceeds of drug trafficking, records, and electronic devices] inside the above address and vehicle”, i.e., the 372 Crawford residence and the red Ford truck.
 As an aside, I note what D.C. Wilson did not say in the ITO. In particular:
a. Nowhere in the ITO did the officer assert that Ms. Hess resides at the 372 Crawford residence…
b. After the observations of June 4, 2019, there is no reference to any later activities of Ms. Hess and Mr. Profetto in the balance of the 103-page ITO…
c. Nowhere in the ITO is there any recorded observation that either Ms. Hess – or Mr. Profetto for that matter – ever entered the 372 Crawford residence….
d. Nowhere in the ITO is there any recorded observation that the “weighted black duffle bag” that Mr. Janisse was seen placing in the rear passenger seat of Ms. Hess’s truck in Tilbury was ever seen being carried into the 372 Crawford residence….
 I have a number of concerns regarding the ITO in the instant case.
 First, D.C. Wilson asserted, in para. 169, that based on the information set out in the ITO, he believes that he will locate items such as controlled drugs, trafficking materials, proceeds of drug trafficking, records, and electronic devices, at the 372 Crawford residence. That belief was based, in large part, on his assertion, set out in para. 11 of the ITO, that based on all the sources of information collected in the course of the Project Oz investigation, Ms. Hess, and Mr. Janisse and the others named in para. 3, “are trafficking controlled substances throughout the Greater Toronto Area.”
 However, insofar as Ms. Hess is concerned, there is nothing set out in the ITO (or otherwise) that supports that assertion. There is nothing that places Ms. Hess in the GTA. The evidence concerning Ms. Hess in the ITO places her in Tilbury and Windsor only. Being completely unsupported by any facts set out in the ITO (or otherwise), the affiant’s assertion that Ms. Hess was currently trafficking in the GTA is simply false or, at the very least, misleading.
 I agree with Mr. Miller’s submission that this “falsehood was critical evidence in the ITO in the issuing of the search warrant because it forged a link between the one isolated transaction on June 4[th] and the presence of controlled substances and the other things in the search warrant in the [372 Crawford] residence for which the warrant was issued.”
 In my view, it is clear that the assertion in para. 11 of the ITO as it applies to Ms. Hess must be excised.
 … As Nakatsuru J. said in Downes, which applies equally to the impugned ITO in the instant case, “a significant piece of context for the ITO is the ample grounds to believe that Mr. Janisse was a high level drug trafficker. Further, Mr. Janisse’s modus operandi appears to be brief vehicle meetings with others where exchanges of bags or boxes take place.”24 But the credible and probable fact that Mr. Janisse conducted drug exchanges does not necessarily mean that the interaction between Mr. Janisse and Ms. Hess on June 4th in Tilbury was one such drug transaction. The specifics of that interaction must be considered.
 As such, in my view, the following commentary of Nakatsuru J. in the Downes case applies with equal force to the circumstances before me here. In Downes, Nakatsuru J. recognized that what matters is whether “the ITO provides reasonable grounds to believe that the evidence relating to the offences would be found in the searches,”26 and he then went on to say:
That recognized, the core frailty of the ITO in relation to the places D.C. Wilson sought to search is that, on an objective assessment of the totality of the circumstances, it cannot be inferred that the meeting on June 21 between Mr. Medeiros and Mr. Janisse was a drug transaction. This is just speculation, and it is unsupported by other information in the ITO, which as a whole does not provide grounds to believe that drug related evidence could be found in the residence, locker, or car.
Innumerable possible explanations can be posited about why Mr. Medeiros met with Mr. Janisse on June 21. The crucial point is that little evidence supports it was for a drug deal. Stripped to its essence, the evidence is that Mr. Medeiros, carrying his backpack, met with Mr. Janisse, who gave him a lift to his Mustang in the underground garage of a neighboring condominium where it had been parked about 30 minutes earlier. They did not stay together in that underground for any length of time. Even when considered in the context of all the other transactions Mr. Janisse was involved in, this cannot lead to a reasonable inference that a drug deal took place.
Carrying the analysis forward, such a meeting therefore cannot support a credibly based probability that evidence of the listed offences could be found in the places linked to Mr. Medeiros. To conclude otherwise would rely at least in part on stereotypical thinking about the behaviour of drug traffickers, who they associate with, and how: James, at paras. 21-25. Like everyone else, drug dealers can have innocent interactions with others. It would be a stretch, to say the least, to assume that everyone a drug dealer interacts with is necessarily buying or selling drugs. All the grounds put forth culminate in suspicion and conjecture but cannot reach the threshold of reasonable and probable grounds: Morelli, at para. 63.
Stereotypical thinking also seems to have infected D.C. Wilson’s assessment of Mr. Medeiros’ dated 2011 convictions for firearm offences. He averred that in his experience it is not uncommon for drug dealers to carry or possess weapons for protection. While such an association does regularly exist, the missing link is any evidence that Mr. Medeiros was or is a drug dealer.27
 In my view, the analysis of Nakatsuru J. in Downes – even though dealing with a different ITO – applies equally to the circumstances of the instant case. The same commentary about the “weighted” backpack in Downes applies with equal force to the “weighted black duffle bag” in our case. The meeting between Mr. Janisse and Ms. Hess in Tilbury did share some suspicious similarities to meetings that Mr. Janisse had with others, but innumerable possible explanations can be posited about why Mr. Janisse met with Ms. Hess in Tilbury on June 4, 2019. Such a meeting therefore cannot support a credibly based probability that evidence of the offences in question could be found in the places linked to Ms. Hess and, in particular, the 372 Crawford residence.
 At the end of the day, the assertion of D.C. Wilson as to the observed singular interaction between Mr. Janisse with Ms. Hess in Tilbury on June 4, 2019, is just speculation, and it is unsupported by other information in the ITO, which as a whole does not provide grounds to believe that drug-related evidence could be found in the 372 Crawford residence.
 Thirdly, the connection of all of these events to the 372 Crawford residence is somewhat tenuous at best. Obviously, on the basis of the information that was set out in the ITO, D.C. Wilson drew an inference that, while in Tilbury, Ms. Hess was provided with a “weighted black duffle bag” that contained illicit drugs or other substances. And, he averred, Ms. Hess then travelled to the driveway of the 372 Crawford residence, where she met Mr. Profetto. Subsequently, both were seen to leave the area of the home and met with third persons. However, neither Ms. Hess nor Mr. Profetto were ever seen to enter the 372 Crawford residence. And more to the point, the “weighted black duffle bag,” which figured so prominently in the drug-related inferences that D.C. Wilson drew, was never seen entering the 372 Crawford residence. Indeed, after its very brief sighting in Tilbury on June 4th, the “weighted black duffle bag” was never seen again insofar as the ITO is concerned. In terms of the evidence set out in the ITO, there is really no connection between the “weighted black duffle bag” and the 372 Crawford residence at all. On the basis of the information… [Emphasis by PJM]
 My fourth concern relates to the staleness of the information and observations recorded in the ITO. As I have said, the only instance of the alleged involvement of Ms. Hess and Mr. Profetto with the Project Oz investigation took place on June 4, 2019. After June 4th, there is nothing that implicates Ms. Hess, Mr. Profetto, or the 372 Crawford residence. [Emphasis by PJM]
 The ITO was sworn by D.C. Wilson three weeks later, on June 26, 2019. The search warrant, based on the information set out in the ITO, was issued on June 27, 2019 – more than three weeks after the only observed incident involving Ms. Hess, Mr. Profetto, and the 372 Crawford residence.
 There was no reference to Ms. Hess, Mr. Profetto, or the 372 Crawford residence after the incident of June 4, 2019. There was no updated surveillance information set out in the ITO as might satisfy the issuing justice that the drug-related activities observed on June 4, 2019, allegedly involving Ms. Hess and Mr. Profetto, were continuing to occur as of June 26 or 27, 2019.
 In James, our Court of Appeal held that the fact that the appellant had sold drugs to someone in his vehicle [on December 18, 2015] 23 days prior to the execution of a search warrant on February 26, 2016, did not establish that reasonable and probable grounds to believe that drugs or drug paraphernalia would be found in the vehicle at the time of the search. The court held that:
Information in the ITO establishes that the respondent might have been involved in a drug transaction on December 18, 2015[,] and provides a reasonable basis to believe that he delivered drugs to MD on February 3, 2016. However, I agree with the trial judge that this information is insufficient to allow a justice to find a pattern of drug dealing or to support the conclusion that there was sufficient credible and reliable evidence to establish reasonable and probable grounds to believe that evidence, drugs or paraphernalia would be found in the car at the time of the search on February 26, 2016.28
 Similarly, I am satisfied that the recorded observations in the ITO as to the alleged events on June 4, 2019, do not provide reasonable and probable grounds to believe that evidence, drugs, or drug paraphernalia would be found in the 372 Crawford residence 23 days later when the search warrant was issued on June 27, 2019.
 In sum, I conclude that the ITO does not meet the standard of a credibility-based probability. I find that the issuing justice could not have properly granted this search warrant given the lack of reasonable and probable grounds that drugs and other associated evidence could be found at the 372 Crawford residence. As a result, I further find that the subsequent search of the 372 Crawford residence pursuant to the flawed search warrant was unlawful.29 It was essentially a warrantless search.30 A warrantless search is prima facie unreasonable, and thus contrary to s. 8 of the Charter.31 The Crown has not met its onus of demonstrating on a balance of probabilities that the warrantless search was reasonable
 I therefore find a violation of the accused’s rights as guaranteed by s. 8 of the Charter.32
 In my view, the high privacy interest in a residential dwelling home and the significant impact on that interest that is caused by an improvidently-obtained search warrant and an unlawful, warrantless search cumulatively favour exclusion of the evidence, rather than admission. Our Court of Appeal has held that “the regular admission of evidence obtained from people’s homes, where there is not a proper basis for a search, would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.”66 I agree with Mr. Miller’s submission that, in the long term, the impact of the routine admission of this type of evidence in the teeth of these type of breaches exacts too heavy a price to the repute of the administration of justice.
 In the result, the evidence obtained from the warrantless search of 372 Crawford residence must be excluded.
 Without the impugned evidence, the charges against both accused must be dismissed. It is so ordered.