to be clear on the logic around 495(2) and the interpretation act, which everybody seems to find so confusing.

- s. 495 (1) governs the rules of arrests for indictable offences.

- s. 495 (2) governs the rules of arrests for hybrid offences.

and, s. 495(2) is very clear in it's wording:

A peace officer shall not arrest a person without warrant for
(b) an offence for which the person may be prosecuted by indictment or for which he is punishable on summary conviction, or
in any case where
(d) he believes on reasonable grounds that the public interest, having regard to all the circumstances including the need to
(i) establish the identity of the person,
(ii) secure or preserve evidence of or relating to the offence, or
(iii) prevent the continuation or repetition of the offence or the commission of another offence,
may be satisfied without so arresting the person, and
(e) he has no reasonable grounds to believe that, if he does not so arrest the person, the person will fail to attend court in order to be dealt with according to law.

lawyer after lawyer and cop after cop wants to ignore this, but the statute is crystal fucking clear - this is the law you have to apply, first and foremost, because it explicitly states that you can't arrest somebody on a specifically hybrid offence if these conditions apply.

now, it might be true that you can treat a hybrid offence like an indictable offence in a variety of circumstances, but you can't just ignore this clause like everybody wants to. this is the appropriate rule. this is what the cops have to follow.

it's only once they've decided that you actually are a flight risk, or they actually caught you in the act, or they need to identify your identity, that the machinery of indictable offences can be brought in.

they have to get through this first! but, they often gloss over it. and, this is a major civil rights problem that i'm more than happy to drag to the supreme court in order to get fixed.

the case may very well reduce to the primacy of s. 495(2) and the logic underlying it. that might be the precise debate that drags on. and, that's fine, if it is, because the cops need their powers of arrest reduced, clearly.