(2) To determine if the admission of evidence obtained by a breach of an accused person's Charter rights would bring the administration of justice into disrepute, courts must consider the seriousness of the Charter-infringing state conduct, the impact of the breach on the Charter-protected rights of the accused, and society's interest in the adjudication of the case on its merits.

The Court created a number of factors to consider when determining whether a person had been detained for the purpose of sections 9 and 10 of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal also noted that moving a firearm from one place to another met the definition of "transfer".

The majority found that "detention" refers to a suspension of an individual's liberty interest by a significant physical or psychological restraint.

To determine whether a reasonable person in the individual's circumstances would conclude that the state had deprived them of the liberty of choice, the court may consider, inter alia, the following factors: The majority went on to find that Mr. Grant was psychologically detained when he was told to keep his hands in front of him and when the other officers moved into position to prevent him from walking forward.

In a concurring decision, Binnie J disagreed with the majority's analysis of the definition of detention but agreed that Mr. Grant was detained before he incriminated himself, infringing his Charter rights.

Nonetheless, she agreed with the majority's ultimate conclusion that the gun should not be excluded as evidence against Mr. Grant.