Ritlop v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2009 HRTO 307

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Romeo Ritlop

Applicant

-and-

Toronto Police Services Board, Valerie Dahan and Michael Kiproff

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: David A. Wright

Date: March 17, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 307

Indexed as: Ritlop v. Toronto Police Services Board

APPEARANCES

Romeo Ritlop, Applicant ) On His Own Behalf

Toronto Police Services Board, ) Naomi Calla, Counsel Valerie Dahan and Michael Kiproff, Respondents )

INTRODUCTION

1Romeo Ritlop, the applicant, is a college electronics student who also has a small electronics business. In February of 2008 he ordered, by phone, components that can be used for detonation. The purchase was made using his mother’s credit card from a company in the United States, and was delivered to his mother’s address. In the following days, two police officers, Detective Constable Valerie Dahan (“DC Dahan”) and Detective Constable Michael Kiproff (“DC Kiproff”), went to his mother’s apartment and asked her questions about the applicant and the purchase. The applicant then spoke by telephone with DC Dahan. She told him that, based on the information he provided about the reasons for the purchase, the investigation would not be pursued. In his Application filed with the Tribunal on July 16, 2008, the applicant alleges that the respondents discriminated against him contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”) on the basis of ancestry, ethnic origin, disability and family status, as a result of the decision to investigate and their actions during the investigation.

THE HEARING

2The hearing was held on February 11, 2009. During the hearing, the name of the respondent Toronto Police Services Board was corrected and I have amended the style of cause accordingly. Although the respondents raised various preliminary issues, it is unnecessary to consider them in light of the decision I have made on the merits of the Application.

3All parties agreed that the issue to be decided is whether the applicant’s ancestry, ethnic origin, disability or family status was a factor in the respondents’ actions. As this determination depends principally on the personal respondents’ evidence, the parties agreed that they would testify first.

THE E-MAIL

4At the relevant time, DC Dahan was assigned as a Field Intelligence Officer at 53 Division. On February 29, 2008, her supervisor forwarded the following e-mail to her for follow-up:

This may be nothing but I sell electronic components via the phone at Digi-Key and individual in Toronto Ontario purchased qty 3 RF Transmitter, Transceiver and Receiver ICs, Modules that I believe could be used in detonation.

The parts are MAXSTREAM INC P/N XBP24-AWI-001

Just in case you want to check this individuals records.

And he may need these for his hobbies or business requirements so this is just a heads up.

The applicant’s mother’s name, address, and phone number were also provided. DC Dahan testified that the e-mail appeared to come from a Digi-Key account, and that she subsequently spoke to the person who sent the e-mail. Relying upon informer privilege, DC Dahan did not disclose the sender’s name. The respondents also stated that the informant was concerned about employment consequences for having sent the e-mail and not willing to disclose his or her identity.

5The applicant alleges that the e-mail is a fabrication. He relies upon the following letter from Allen Holt, Customer Service Supervisor at Digi-Key:

Dear Romeo:

I have talked to my Manager and Digi-Key can not confirm that the attached came from Digi-Key as it is not on legal company letter head. I have contacted Digi-Key’s IT department and they have not found any E-mail sent to the Toronto Police. Thank you for your time.

6The applicant suggests that this letter establishes that the e-mail was not sent from Digi-Key, and by extension, supports his theory that it was fabricated. I do not agree that the letter supports that conclusion. It simply states that the Digi-Key IT department did not find an e-mail sent to the Toronto police and that the e-mail was not on company letterhead. There is nothing about the efforts undertaken to locate the e-mail or any description of company’s practices, if any, for recording and retaining records of e-mail communications. The applicant made efforts, during the hearing, to have Mr. Holt testify by telephone after I raised these concerns. Mr. Holt, however, advised that he was instructed by the company’s human resources department not to give evidence. The applicant did not make any efforts to call Mr. Holt as a witness prior to the hearing.

7Having considered DC Dahan’s evidence, which was entirely credible for reasons set out at para. 16 below, I accept that the e-mail was sent to the Toronto Police Service, appeared to come from a Digi-Key address, and that she spoke to a person who confirmed that he or she sent it. Further evidence from Mr. Holt would not change those findings.

INVESTIGATION

8DC Dahan testified that as part of the investigation, various searches were conducted on police databases. She also spoke with the individual at Digi-Key whose name was on the e-mail, who advised when the order was placed and when it was to be delivered. The informant told her that the individual who placed the order was male and provided the e-mail address attached to the order, which began with “Romeo”. In the reports arising from the searches, there was information that caused her to deduce that the person receiving the packages and the applicant might be related.

9DC Dahan decided to go to the address where the packages were sent, and asked DC Kiproff to come with her. DC Kiproff was about to take over the Field Intelligence Officer position and was shadowing her at times. She testified that, although she had the applicant’s address as shown on his driver’s license, she decided to visit his mother’s address to see what knowledge the person receiving the packages had about them, and because addresses on driver’s licenses are often inaccurate since people do not update them when they move.

10It is clear from the evidence of all witnesses that the applicant’s mother was very upset by the officer’s questions, was agitated and felt intimidated. She informed the officers that her son was an electronics student, confirmed his address, and advised that she had authorized him to use her credit card and have packages delivered to her apartment DC Dahan left her card and requested that she ask the applicant to contact her. The next morning, DC Dahan called the applicant’s college and verified that he was a student there. DC Dahan testified that during the conversation with his mother, she first learned of the applicant’s disability.

11Later that day, the applicant telephoned 53 Division and spoke to DC Dahan. He recorded that conversation and filed a transcript as evidence, which was accepted by the respondents as accurate. The conversation involved a discussion of the visit to his mother, the reasons for and nature of the investigation. DC Dahan also asked about the reasons Mr. Ritlop made the purchases.

12The applicant highlighted certain portions of the conversation in his cross-examination of DC Dahan. DC Dahan said, during the conversation, that a “piece of the puzzle” was that a man was placing the order that was being paid for with a woman’s credit card. She also suggested that factors which raised some suspicion or concern were that his mother worked as a building superintendent, that his surname was different from hers, and that the materials were not intended for her. In her evidence, she explained that she was referring to a concern that the credit card might be stolen, that someone might be intending to intercept the packages, or that she might be receiving the deliveries for someone else in the building.

13He also referred to a portion of the conversation in which he asked, “does anything in the system say what religious sect I belong to”. DC Dahan replied that was “irrelevant” and said, “we are not going to repeat our mistakes…by profiling and saying listen, this guy’s name doesn’t match what we think is a terrorist. That, that’s not going to happen, and especially not when I’m working.”

14During the phone call, DC Dahan said that she was satisfied that the applicant was purchasing the components for legitimate purposes and made clear that she would not pursue the investigation further.

ANALYSIS

15Resolving this case depends primarily upon the credibility of the evidence given by DC Dahan. I must determine whether the evidence proves, on a balance of probabilities, that the applicant’s ancestry, ethnic origin, disability or family status played a role in the respondents’ investigation. I emphasize that my role is not to decide or comment on the appropriateness of the investigative techniques used, but rather to determine whether there was a violation of the Code.

16DC Dahan’s evidence was straightforward, logical, reasonable, and consistent. I find that she carried out the investigation she was assigned without differential treatment on the basis of any of the listed grounds. I cannot agree that the only possible explanation for the actions she took is discrimination on one of the alleged grounds. In my view, the police were following up on a tip they received about purchase of materials which might be used to create explosives without regard to the applicant’s personal characteristics.

17I accept DC Dahan’s evidence that she was not aware that the applicant had a disability when she went to speak with his mother, and that this issue played no part in any of her actions. There is also no evidence that she or DC Kiproff was aware of, or took any steps based upon, the applicant’s ancestry or ethnic origin. In fact, as she told the applicant on the phone, she was careful not to make any assumptions about who might or might not be involved in illicit activities based on such factors. “Family status” is defined in the Code as “the status of being in a parent and child relationship”. There is no evidence that any actions the police took were because of the applicant’s mother-son relationship. In fact, DC Dahan went to the mother’s residence in part because she was not aware of whether the parts were being ordered for a family member. In my view, the transcript of the conversation supports the conclusion that the investigation was not tainted by discriminatory considerations.

18I understand that the applicant is puzzled and taken aback by the fact that the Toronto Police conducted an investigation about his electronics purchases out of a concern they could be used for illicit or illegal purposes. This is understandably disconcerting. It is, however, a legitimate role of police to investigate possible wrongdoing in order to protect the community. I note that the investigation ended as soon as DC Dahan had verified information about the purpose of the purchases and that she readily accepted the applicant’s explanation. This is a further factor supporting my conclusion that Code grounds were not a factor in the police actions.

ORDER

19The Application is dismissed.