Investigative detention seems to be one of the hottest topics of litigation lately. In the recent case Ontario Court of Appeal decision, R v Amofa, 2011 ONCA 368, 2011 CarswellOnt 3037,  OJ No 2095, the court offers some helpful insight into this policing power and in doing so provides a Quotable Quote.
In Amofa the police were involved in an initiative called the "Robbery Reduction Program" which was aimed at providing police presence in high crime areas including subway stops in Scarborough. While working in this capacity the police identified two individuals who were behaving suspiciously and who the police ultimately believed were about to become involved in a robbery or mugging. After approaching one of the suspects the police advised him that there was going to be a search of his person during an investigative detention. The suspect resisted this notion indicating that he would "search himself". This notion did not go over well and a "violent struggle ensued". Ultimately a firearm was located on the suspect.
In rejecting the ground of appeal relating to the failed section 8 motion, Blair JA notes that the consideration and analysis of section 8 issues is not a static point-in-time one and offers the following helpful comment:
The flow of the investigative detention, the arrest and the search was a dynamic process. Section 8 analyses ought not be reduced to an over-analytical parsing of events into static moments without practical regard for the overall picture [para 19].