trial judge found a single infringement — a failure to provide
the informational component of s. 10(b) immediately upon
arrest. He further found that this infringement did not result in
any evidence being obtained.
 The trial judge erred in failing to find that the traffic
stop offended s. 9 of the Charter and, as a result, failed to consider its impact on the police conduct that followed and the
admissibility of the seized evidence under s. 24(2).
 The traffic stop and subsequent detention was arbitrary,
thus offended s. 9 of the Charter because it was not based on any
reasonable suspicion that the occupants of the van were involved
in any way in the investigation of the residential break-ins that
Det. Ward was then pursuing. And it was that detection that
permitted Det. Ward to smell the raw marijuana; to see the
sealed boxes; and to observe the appellant’s reaction to police
questions. And it was these circumstances that provided Det.
Ward with the grounds necessary to arrest the appellant. And
it was that arrest that permitted the search incident to arrest
that located the packaged marijuana in the sealed packets in
the sealed cardboard box in the van. Which led to the search
warrant for the van. Which led to the search warrant for the
house. All of which led to the evidence that constituted the case
for the Crown.
 It follows from what I have said that the trial judge’s
s. 24(2) analysis is not entitled to deference. His errors in failing
to recognize the full extent of the Charter infringements that
occurred here, in particular the front end arbitrary detention,
led him to conduct his s. 24(2) analysis on a much more
restricted basis than was required. His errors require our intervention and a reappraisal of the admissibility of the evidence.
 In my respectful view, a proper analysis under s. 24(2)
requires exclusion of the products of the searches of the appellant, the van and the house at [number omitted] Hislop. In
combination, the seriousness of the police misconduct and
the strong negative impact of the breaches on the appellant’s
Charter-protected interests constitute an unanswerable case
for exclusion. Doubtless, society has a significant interest in
a trial on the merits. The evidence that is the subject of
the complaints about unconstitutional conduct is reliable and
crucial to proof for the case for the Crown. But society’s immediate interest in an adjudication of the merits of this particular
case must give way to the more important long-term interests
served by its exclusion in this case.
 This case involves serious police misconduct. Detective
Ward had no grounds to believe that the occupants of the van