HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Michael Christianson

Applicant

-and-

Windsor Police Service and Michael Langlois

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Andrew M. Diamond

Date: February 1, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 229

Indexed as: Christianson v. Windsor Police Service

AppearanceS BY

Michael Christianson, Applicant ) On his own behalf

Windsor Police Service and ) Patrick Brode, Counsel

Michael Langlois, Respondents )

Introduction

1This is an Application filed under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c.H-19, as amended (the “Code”) alleging discrimination in the provision of goods and services by the respondents based on a disability or, more particularly, perceived disability. The original complaint was made to the Ontario Human Rights Commission (the “Commission”) on December 17, 2007. That complaint was abandoned and this Application was brought to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (the “Tribunal”) on December 22, 2008.

2By all accounts, the applicant, Michael Christianson, has had an unfortunate life. Either as a result of or as part of his misfortune, the applicant has had a number of dealings with various members of the Windsor Police Service. Six of those dealings have resulted in the applicant making complaints to the Windsor Police Service Professional Standards Branch, as well as requests for reconsideration to the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services, as well as applications to the Commission and the Tribunal.

Background

3The basis of the allegation before me is that on November 1, 2007, the personal respondent, Staff Sergeant Langlois, refused services to the applicant by not investigating what the applicant perceived to be criminal activity. Specifically, the applicant wanted a former University of Windsor student arrested for mischief. The applicant testified that the reason the personal respondent did not investigate his allegations is because the respondents believe the applicant to suffer from paranoid schizophrenia, a diagnosis which the applicant denies. In fact, the applicant alleges that any disability that he might suffer from is as a result of the criminal acts of various doctors that the Windsor Police Service has also refused to investigate.

4While the alleged denial of service which forms the basis of this Application occurred on November 1, 2007, some background is required for context. In 1991, the applicant was enrolled as a student at the University of Windsor with the hopes of becoming a teacher. In or about December of 1991, the applicant was arrested and charged with public mischief. The applicant was released on his own recognisance with a promise to appear. For reasons that are not clear from the evidence before me, prior to his re-attendance on the mischief charge, the applicant was committed to a psychiatric facility against his will. As a result of his committal, the applicant failed to attend court on the mischief charge as directed and was charged with the offence of failing to appear (although upon the Crown being advised of the reason for the failure to appear that charge was subsequently withdrawn).

5It was during this period of committal that the applicant alleges he was mistreated by various doctors. In pursuit of righting this perceived wrong, the applicant has, over the intervening years, sued the doctors in question, and made numerous attempts to compel the police to investigate his allegations of criminal wrong-doing on the part of the doctors. As mentioned above, a number of his requests for various investigations or to have various charges laid (including against members of the Windsor Police Service) and their failure to do so, have resulted in the applicant making complaints to the Windsor Police Service Professional Standards Branch, all of which were rejected.

Facts and Analysis

6With respect to this Application, both the applicant and the personal respondent testified (the personal respondent with the aid of his contemporaneous notes) that on November 1, 2007, the applicant telephoned the personal respondent in his capacity as a member of the Windsor Police Service. As the head of the Windsor Police Service Professional Standards Branch, the personal respondent was familiar with the applicant had dealt with the applicant’s previous complaints, and had knowledge of the background set out above.

7On November 1, 2007, the applicant advised the personal respondent that, in 1991, a fellow student had lied to the University of Windsor Campus Police about the applicant and demanded that this person be arrested for mischief. There was no evidence before me that the applicant had any information or evidence to support his assertion other than his own belief.

8The parties’ evidence with respect to the telephone conversation of November 1, 2007 is not significantly different except that the personal respondent asserts the applicant became irate and loud at the end of the conversation.

9The applicant’s mother testified that she remembers the conversation and that her son was not irate or loud on the telephone, although she admits that she did not hear the entire conversation as she was busy in the house. While nothing turns on the point, I am prepared to accept that the personal respondent believed the tone to be loud and the applicant did not believe it to be so.

10The personal respondent testified that during this conversation he advised the applicant that (1) the information that the applicant had provided fell well short of meeting the criteria for laying a criminal charge; (2) that he was of the opinion the applicant had exhausted all avenues for what the personal respondent viewed as a complaint without merit; and (3) that the applicant was wasting his time pursuing a conspiracy theory from 1991.

11It is the third statement which is potentially troubling if the personal respondent based his decision not to investigate on his belief any allegation of a conspiracy was unfounded because it resulted from an assessment of the applicant’s psychiatric condition rather than a genuine incident. However, it is important to place this statement in context of the parties’ history. The personal respondent was not only familiar with the applicant; he was also familiar with the applicant’s previous complaints and investigations. Those allegations, based on the same historic underpinnings, had been extensively investigated by the Windsor Police Service and the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services and they were found to have no merit.

12While I understand how the applicant believes that he was denied service based on the respondents’ perception of him. However, having heard all of the evidence both on this incident and about the greater context of the parties’ lengthy relationship, I do not find that the applicant was denied services by the respondents for reasons of either disability or a perceived disability. Instead, I find that the respondents decided, for reasons that do not engage Code-protections, to refuse to investigate the applicant’s 16-year old, undocumented and unsupported allegation. This was an appropriate and reasonable response in all the circumstances.

13The Application is dismissed.