The Court applied the new test for detention created in the companion case of R v Grant and ruled on the timing of when an individual is required to be informed of his or her rights to counsel after being arrested or detained.

A police constable unaware of the background was dispatched to respond to a call about a male person using a stolen credit card at the Cobourg store.

After this conversation, the police constable was informed by radio dispatch of the description and license plate of the van that had been involved with using the stolen credit card.

9 and 10 of the Charter refers to a suspension of the individual’s liberty interest by a significant physical or psychological restraint.

b) The nature of the police conduct, including the language used; the use of physical contact; the place where the interaction occurred; the presence of others; the duration of the encounter.

Therefore, the remaining question was whether the police officer's conduct would lead a reasonable person to believe that he had no choice but to comply.

The majority found that the Court of Appeal's proposition would have created an ill-defined and unworkable test - brief exploratory questioning is an abstract concept and difficult to quantify, and section 10(b) is intended to impose specific obligations on the police.

The only exceptions to "immediately" are concerns for officer and public safely, and limitations prescribed by law that are justified under section 1 of the Charter.

Fish J. did not expressly state his opinion on the issue, but did note that "upon detention, Mr. Suberu was not given his rights under s. 10 of the Charter."

Since the majority ruled that the police are allowed to interact with the public without engaging an investigative detention, there was no need to create a section 1 limitation.

Binnie J., after concluding that the type of questions did constitute a detention, found that the Crown could argue for a section 1 limitation.

However, Binnie J. found that there was not sufficient evidence or arguments before the Court to allow for the point to be properly adjudicated.