On September 30, 2009, five days before the appellant’s
arrest, Det. Ward had seen a brand new van, occupied by two
younger-looking “Latino” men driving in an area where several
break-ins had occurred. The van came from an area to which
there was no access, then entered the garage at [number omitted] Hislop. The occupants had given Det. Ward a suspicious
look as they passed by. Detective Ward watched the house for a
further hour but saw no signs of activity in or around it.
 On that same day, Det. Ward learned that the van had
been rented from a car rental company by a Gilbert Gonzales of
a Toronto address. The vehicle was overdue at the rental agency.
Detective Ward concluded that either the driver or passenger
in the van had some connection with [number omitted] Hislop,
perhaps living there. He did not think that there was any link
between the vehicle or its occupants and the break-ins he was
investigating. He had no reason to stop it for any highway traffic
or safety reason.
 On October 5, 2009, Det. Ward saw the same or a similar
van in the area in which he was conducting surveillance. The
appellant was the driver. Both occupants of the van looked at
Det. Ward prompting the officer to think that perhaps they
had “made” him as a police officer. This time, the van did not
pull into [number omitted] Hislop, rather drove by and stopped
a few houses beyond it. When Det. Ward pulled up behind the
van, the vehicle pulled away.
 Detective Ward signalled the driver of the van to pull
over. The driver complied. Ward wanted to investigate the occupants to determine whether they were linked to the break-ins.
The officer had no basis to stop them for any highway traffic
or safety contravention. Detective Ward pulled the van over
because he wanted to identify its occupants and to have a
look inside the vehicle to see whether it contained any stolen
property, gloves or anything else that would link it or its occupants to previous or future break-ins.
 Detective Ward told the appellant, who was the driver,
that he wanted to see his licence, ownership and insurance. The
appellant complied and also turned over a copy of the rental
agreement. The appellant avoided responding to Det. Ward’s
inquiries about why he (the appellant) was in the area. With the
driver’s window lowered in the van, Det. Ward smelled the odour
of fresh marijuana and could see several large sealed cardboard
boxes in the rear of the van. The officer thought the boxes might
contain drugs. He began to formulate grounds to arrest the
occupants for possession of marijuana. The smell. The nervous
appearance and evasive responses of the appellant. The refusal