( v) the nature and extent of the intrusion; and
( vi) the context in which the police/citizen confrontation took
See Mann, at para. 26; Simpson, at pp. 499-500 C.C.C.
 Where a person is detained by police in the course of
efforts to determine whether that person is involved in a criminal activity being investigated, that detention can only be justified if the detaining officer has some articulable cause, or said
in another way, reasonable grounds to suspect, the person is
involved in the investigated activity. This standard includes both
objective and subjective components: Mann, at paras. 27 and 33;
Simpson, at p. 500 C.C.C.
The principles applied
 As I will explain, I would give effect to this ground of
appeal and hold that the traffic stop made by Det. Ward was an
arbitrary detention in breach of s. 9 of the Charter.
 The principal basis upon which the trial judge found the
stop and subsequent detention was lawful, thus not arbitrary,
was that it was authorized by s. 216(1) of the HTA. I disagree.
 Recall that the authority for which s. 216(1) provides is
circumscribed by its purpose — highway regulation and safety.
To determine the police purpose in effecting a stop and detection,
we must consider the evidence of the officers involved, the persons detained and any other evidence, testimonial or real, concerning the circumstances and conduct of the stop. In this case,
that takes us to the testimony of Det. Ward.
 Detective Ward was in the area where the stop occurred
for a single purpose. And that purpose had nothing to do with
highway regulation or vehicular safety. As he testified, he was
there — in plainclothes driving an unmarked vehicle — to investigate an untoward number of daytime residential break-ins in
the area. He drove around and kept his eyes open for any signs
that might assist in matching suspects with crimes.
 The trial judge was obliged to ground the findings necessary to engage s. 216(1) on the evidence adduced on the voir dire
and any reasonable inferences that might arise from that evidence. The record reveals no basis upon which to reject Det.
Ward’s testimony that his purpose in stopping the van was to
pursue his investigation of the residential break-ins, his raison
d’être for being in the area in the first place. This he planned
to do by looking into the interior of the van for any indicia associated with break-ins: contraband, gloves, tools of the trade and