so, they initially tried to justify the arrest under 495(1) by citing storrey, which was wrong.

now, they're trying to argue that the interpretation act overpowers 495(2), which is still wrong, regardless of how i'm interpreting the interpretation act. 495(2) provides a set of limitations that apply to all hybrid offences, regardless of whether the police wish to interpret the charges as indictable in other contexts, and regardless of how the crown elects to proceed, in the end.

and, i can find some references for that point.