HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Ram Singh
Applicant
-and-
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as Represented by the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services (Ontario Provincial Police)
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Eric Whist
Indexed as: Singh v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services)
APPEARANCES
Ram Singh, Applicant ) Self-represented
Ministry of Community Safety and ) Jinan Kubursi, Counsel Correctional Services (OPP), ) Respondent )
1This Application was filed under the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”). The Application alleges discrimination in the provision of services on the basis of race, colour and place of origin. The applicant alleges that he was subject to discriminatory treatment by Constable Manson of the Ontario Provincial Police (“OPP”) on November 7, 2008 when he was stopped in his vehicle and was subject to a vehicle safety inspection. Constable Manson determined that the vehicle was unsafe and could not be driven. Constable Manson removed the vehicle’s license plates and served the applicant with two provincial offences tickets, one for failing to produce a valid insurance card and one for having an improper braking system.
2A hearing was held on February 15, 2012. I heard testimony from the applicant and Constable Manson. I also had before me documentary evidence that included Constable Manson’s notes made at the time on November 7, 2008 and a transcript of the applicant’s Provincial Offences Court trial at which he was convicted of having an improper braking system but not for failing to produce a valid insurance card.
DECISION
3The Application is dismissed. The applicant indicated that he accepted that most of Constable Manson’s actions during the November 7, 2008 were only related to Constable Manson carrying out his job and were not discriminatory. The applicant’s principle theory of the case was that Constable Manson was aware of the applicant’s past dealings with other police officers and consequently “stomped” on the license plates of the applicant’s vehicle to demonstrate or remind the applicant of police authority and power. I do not find this theory probable and I prefer Constable Manson’s non-discriminatory explanations for his actions.
EVIDENCE
Overview of the November 7, 2008 Incident
4There was general agreement about the basic facts as to what occurred on November 7, 2008. I will identify those issues in dispute.
5The applicant was driving his 1989 Plymouth Voyageur minivan north on Torbram Road in the Town of Caledon when he was stopped by Constable Manson. Constable Manson has been a police officer for over 19 years including 17 years with the Peel Regional Police before he was employed with the OPP beginning in 2008. In November 2008 he was assigned to the Caledon OPP detachment.
6Constable Manson testified that he stopped the applicant’s vehicle based on an assessment of its age and condition and for the expressed purpose of conducting a roadside safety inspection. Constable Manson first asked the applicant for his driver’s license, car registration and car insurance card. The applicant provided a car insurance card that was no longer valid.
7Constable Manson proceeded to conduct a roadside vehicle inspection which involved a detailed visual inspection of the vehicle. He proceeded to conduct a test for the vehicle’s brake system and determined that the emergency brake was not properly functioning.
8It was agreed that Constable Manson told the applicant that he would not be permitted to continue to use his vehicle and that he would need to call a tow truck in order to move the vehicle. It is further agreed that the applicant asked to use Constable Manson’s cell phone in order to call the Canadian Automobile Association (“C.A.A.”) and that Constable Manson stated he does not let people use his cell phone as it is his own personal cell phone. The applicant testified that he was then told by Constable Manson to go to any of the nearby residences to ask to use a telephone to call a tow truck. Constable Manson testified that he offered to call his dispatch in order to order a tow truck. He testified that the applicant refused the offer, rather insisting that he should be allowed to use Constable Manson’s cell phone. Constable Manson testified that it was only then that he suggested the applicant try to make a telephone call from a nearby residence. The applicant denies that Constable Manson offered to contact his dispatch in order to call for a tow truck.
9While the applicant went off to make his telephone call Constable Manson completed a vehicle inspection report and prepared two provincial offences tickets to serve on the applicant. When the applicant returned, Constable Manson proceeded to remove the license plates from the applicant’s vehicle.
10Constable Manson testified that the reason he waited for the applicant to return to his vehicle before removing the license plates was because his standard practice is not to touch a vehicle without the owner or an agent of the owner present. Constable Manson testified that this practice arises from his experience with vehicle owners accusing him of scratching or damaging their vehicle when they were not there.
11Constable Manson testified that he was required to remove the license plates given his decision that the vehicle was not safe to drive. He testified that when license plates are removed from a vehicle they are returned to the Ministry of Transportation (“MTO”). If the vehicle is repaired and a vehicle safety standards certificate from a certified mechanic is issued then the vehicle owner can obtain new license plates for the vehicle from MTO.
12Constable Manson testified that the bracket and the fasteners holding the applicant’s vehicle’s license plates in place were rusted. Constable Manson testified that in his experience this was not unusual with older vehicles. Constable Manson testified that given the rust he had to bend and pull the license plates off the car. According to Constable Manson this left the license plates with jagged holes around where they were fastened to the vehicle as well as bent. Constable Manson testified that he subsequently stepped on the license plates to flatten them and to eliminate the jagged edges.
13Constable Manson testified that he did this for his own safety and in response to MTO staff who have communicated their concern that jagged edges in license plates that have been removed can be a safety hazard for them. Constable Manson testified that the procedure he uses to remove license plates from vehicles with rusted fasteners and his practice of stepping on the license plates to flatten them and to eliminate their jagged edges is a long standing and standard practice for him.
14The applicant testified that after making his telephone call and returning to his vehicle he found his valid, up to date insurance card which he then provided to Constable Manson. He testified that Constable Manson told him that there was nothing he could do, that the applicant would have to bring this document to court.
15Constable Manson testified that he did not recall the applicant providing him a valid insurance card. He testified that if he had served the applicant with a ticket for having an invalid insurance card he could not have simply taken back the ticket when presented with a valid insurance card because the ticket would have been a legal document that he could not disregard or destroy. He testified that he has told people in similar circumstances that they can bring their valid insurance card to court. He testified that when this happens he records it in his notebook so that, if necessary, he can testify in court to the fact that a person did present a valid insurance card. He testified that there was no record in his notebook of the applicant having presented him with a valid insurance card on Nov 7, 2008. I note here that the applicant did present a valid insurance card at his court appearance (date of issue unknown) and was not convicted of a provincial offence for driving without valid insurance.
The Applicant’s Specific Allegations
16The applicant testified that he did not have issues with how Constable Manson generally carried out his vehicle inspection and with his interactions with Constable Manson on November 7, 2008. The applicant’s concerns focussed on Constable Manson’s treatment of the license plates and his belief that this treatment was related to the applicant’s past difficulties with “the police”.
17The applicant testified that he has had a number of troubling interactions with police officers since coming to Canada in the 1960’s. The applicant is originally from Fiji. He testified about one interaction, in particular. He testified that he was involved in an incident with a police officer from the Peel Regional Police in 1998 during which the officer subjected him to racial epithets and which, according to the applicant, led to the applicant being unfairly jailed in 1999. The applicant testified that as a result of this experience he pursued a lawsuit for wrongful conviction. He testified that the lawsuit never went to trial and ended in 2007.
18The applicant testified that Constable Manson could have removed the license plates from his car while he was off making his telephone call but that he waited until the applicant’s return. The applicant alleged that this was done deliberately, in order for the applicant to witness Constable Manson “stomping” on the license plates.
19The applicant testified that Constable Manson could have removed the license plates with tools and could have asked the applicant for the necessary tools if he, himself, did not have them. The applicant testified that the forceful removal of the license plates from his vehicle was both unnecessary and deliberate. The applicant testified that, in his view, Constable Manson’s removal of the license plates and subsequent stomping on the license plates was done to intimidate the applicant, to signal to him police power and authority. The applicant testified that he believed Constable Manson did this because Constable Manson had been a member of the Peel Regional Police for 17 years and would have known of the applicant’s past dealings with the Peel Regional Police and, in particular, the police officer the applicant believed had made racial comments to him in 1998.
20Constable Manson testified that he had never met the applicant before, that he did not recognize the applicant’s name from any previous dealings the applicant may have had with a police service. Constable Mansion testified that he did know of the Peel Regional Police officer with whom the applicant had had issues in 1997 but he had no personal dealings with this person and was unfamiliar with any issues the applicant may have had with this police officer.
ANALYSIS
21I find that this case can be decided on a balance of probabilities, that is whether the applicant has proven, on a balance of probabilities, that the evidence supports a finding that race, colour and place of origin was a factor in the way Constable Manson treated the applicant. There is no need for me to rely on shifting burdens of proof to decide this matter. I find that the applicant’s theory of the case to be improbable and that the evidence before me supports the respondent’s non-discriminatory reasons for why Constable Manson treated the applicant in the manner that he did.
22The applicant alleges discrimination based on race, colour and place of origin arising from a single incident on November 7, 2008. Importantly, the applicant clarified at the hearing that he was not alleging that he was subject to discriminatory treatment throughout his encounter with Constable Manson. He repeatedly referred to Constable Manson just doing his job. He submitted, for example, that he was not alleging that he was stopped because of his race, colour and place of origin or that the decision to subject him to a road side inspection and to subsequently charge him with two provincial offences was discriminatory or tainted, in some measure, by considerations of his race, colour and place of origin.
23There were two notable differences between the applicant and Constable Manson about what happened on November 7, 2008. The applicant testified that Constable Manson never offered to call a tow truck for him through his dispatch but rather obliged him to go to nearby residences to find a telephone. Constable Manson testified that he offered to have his dispatch call a tow truck for the applicant. The applicant testified that he did try to provide Constable Manson with a valid insurance card. Constable Manson testified that he did not recall this occurring.
24I note that the applicant did not submit that these disputed incidents were instances in which he felt that he had been subject to discriminatory treatment that Constable Manson was trying to deny. Accordingly, I am of the view that I do not need to make findings of fact as to what precisely did occur. The applicant’s absolute focus was on Constable Manson’s actions in relation to the license plates on his vehicle.
25The applicant repeatedly alleged that Constable Manson’s actions in removing his vehicle’s license plates and stomping on them was to send him a message because of his past interactions with “the police”. However, I do not find it probable that Constable Manson had knowledge of the applicant’s prior experiences with different police officers including with officers from the Peel Regional Police. I do not find it probable that Constable Manson would recognize the applicant’s name or know of a specific past interaction the applicant may have had with the Peel Regional Police arising out of an incident in 1997.
26What I find to be credible and to be more probable is Constable Manson’s explanations for when and why he removed the license plates from the applicant’s vehicle and subsequently flattened them. I find Constable Manson’s explanation for why he waited until the applicant returned before removing the license plates to be credible. I accept that he only removes license plates from a vehicle in the presence of the vehicle’s owner and that this is his long standing practice given past accusations he has had from vehicle owners about damage. I find Constable Manson’s detailed explanation for the difficulties in dealing with rusted fasteners in removing license plates and the need to flatten license plates for his safety and the safety of others entirely credible.
27This is a matter in which the applicant may have found the way in which Constable Manson’s handled the removal and disposal of his license plates to be unnecessary and unexpected. It is clear these actions gave rise to some unpleasant associations for the applicant. However, ultimately I do not find the applicant’s theory of the case to be plausible and on a balance of probabilities I prefer the respondent’s non discriminatory reasons for what occurred on November 7, 2008.
28For these reasons the Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 24th day of February, 2012.
“signed by”
Eric Whist
Vice-chair