What is the test for conscriptive evidence in a sexual assault case?

I reproduce a portion of the majority judgment from Stillman v. The Qeen, supra, as follows: The primary aim and purpose of considering the trial fairness factor in the section 24.2 analysis is to prevent an accused person whose Charter rights have been infringed from being forced are conscripted to provide evidence in the form of confessions, statements or bodily samples for the benefit of the state. Thus, when the trial fairness factor is being considered, it is necessary to classify the evidence as conscriptive or non-conscriptive based upon the manner in which the evidence was obtained. If the accused was not compelled to participate in the creation or discovery of the evidence, the evidence will be classified as non-conscriptive. Its admission will not render the trial unfair and the court will proceed to consider the seriousness of the breach and the effect of the exclusion on the repute of the administration of justice. If the evidence obtained in a manner which violates the Charter involves the accused being compelled to incriminate himself, either by his statement or by the use as evidence of his body or of bodily substance, it will be classified as conscriptive evidence.

I have concluded that there is to be a new trial. I note that the learned trial judge had no opportunity to consider Regina v. Laurier or Stillman v. The Queen in arriving at his decision to exclude the evidence.