Ms. Berner, the driver, was the only person on the scene to be taken to the police car to await medical care. While in the vehicle the officer told Ms. Berner that she would be taking a recorded statement from her. The officer took out her recorder and began her interview while standing outside the passenger door to the vehicle. The trial judge considered the questions the officer asked to be “of a general nature”. They were, in the sense that the officer was attempting to find out what had caused the accident. However, the officer began her interview with Ms. Berner by identifying the file number attached to the investigation and then asked Ms. Berner to tell her what had happened while she recorded the conversation. It seems to me that if the trial judge had asked what a reasonable person in Ms. Berner’s position would make of the situation, he would have reached the conclusion that the reasonable person would believe that he or she was required to co-operate with the police and answer the questions. In my view the trial judge erred in failing to conclude that Ms. Berner was detained while she was questioned by the officer. The detention was not one of short duration as described in Orbanski; Elias. Thus Ms. Berner ought to have been advised of her right to counsel under s. 10(b) of the Charter before her tape recorded statement was taken by the officer.