Can a police constable ask a person's name and address without arrest?

Counsel for the appellant submits that I should not follow Moore v. The Queen (1978), 1978 CanLII 160 (SCC), 24 N.R. 181; 43 C.C.C. (2d) 83, as it is a decision prior to the enactment of the Charter. Spence, J., giving judgment for the court stated at p. 90: "Therefore, for the reasons which I have outlined above, I am of the opinion that the officer was under a duty to attempt to identify the wrongdoer and the failure to identify himself by the wrongdoer did constitute an obstruction of the police officer in the performance of his duties. "I add that in coming to this conclusion I have not forgotten the provisions of the Canadian Bill of Rights nor the topic of individual freedom generally but I am of the opinion that there is not even minimal interference with any freedom of a citizen who is seen committing an infraction by a police constable in the police constable simply requesting his name and address without any attempt to obtain from that person any admission of fault or any comment whatsoever. On the other hand, the refusal of a citizen to identify himself under such circumstances causes a major inconvenience and obstruction to the police in carrying out their proper duties. So that if anyone were engaged in any balancing of interest, there could be no doubt that the conclusion to which I have come would be that supported by the overwhelming public interest." I realize that the reference in the Moore case to the Bill of Rights does not establish a precedent with respect to Charter issues. The judgment, however, is certainly a strong statement respecting the reasonableness of a request by a police officer for the name and address of a person he finds committing an offence. The only caveat that is placed on this statement by the court is that the police officer must not attempt to obtain any admission of fault or any other comment from the person. The case is also authority for the proposition that the refusal of the citizen to give his name and address constitutes a major obstruction to the police and that it is in the overwhelming public interest that citizens do give their names and addresses. The case dealt with s. 450 (now s. 495(2) (d)(i)) of the Criminal Code dealing with the right to arrest without warrant. This section protects a citizen against arbitrary arrest, and in effect, prevents the police from arresting a person unless such arrest is necessary to establish the identity of that person: "495(1) … "(2) A peace officer shall not arrest a person without warrant for (a) an indictable offence mentioned in section 553, (b) an offence for which the person may be prosecuted by indictment or for which he is punishable on summary conviction, or (c) an offence punishable on summary conviction, 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."