What is the test for "good faith" conduct in the context of police misconduct?

In Chaput v. Romain, 1955 CanLII 74 (SCC), [1955] S.C.R. 834, [1955] 1 D.L.R. (2d) 241, a group of Jehovah's Witnesses who had been the subject of a warrantless search sought damages against members of the Quebec provincial police. The discussion on good faith is in the context of a Quebec statute protecting peace officers against liability where the officers act in good faith in the execution of their duties, but their actions exceed their powers or jurisdiction. In his concurring minority decision, Kellock J. discusses the contrast between good and bad faith conduct at pp. 856-859: What is required in order to bring a defendant within the terms of such a statute as this is a bona fide belief in the existence of a state of facts which, had they existed, would have justified him in acting as he did. This rule was laid down in Hermann v. Seneschal [(1862) 13 C.B. (N.S.) 392 at 402]. The contrast is with an act of such a nature that it is wholly wide of any statutory or public duty, i.e. wholly unauthorized and where there exists no colour for supposing that it could have been an authorized one. In such case there can be no question of good faith or honest motive. …. The same considerations govern the expression "good faith" in s. 7: it defines the state of mind in executing a duty: the officer must have acted in "good faith", i.e., believing in facts which, if true, would have justified what he did.