A.M. v. Durham Regional Police Service, 2015 HRTO 792

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

A.M. Applicant

-and-

Durham Regional Police Service Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Leslie Reaume

Date: June 15, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 792

Indexed as: A.M. v. Durham Regional Police Service

APPEARANCES

A.M., Applicant Self-represented

Durham Regional Police Service, Respondent Gordon Woods, Counsel

Introduction

1A.M. filed an Application with the Tribunal alleging discrimination against the Durham Regional Police Service on the basis of disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). In this Decision I refer to A.M. as the applicant and the Durham Regional Police Service as the respondent. The applicant represented herself while the respondent was represented by counsel. The parties agreed to identify the applicant by her initials because this Decision contains sensitive personal information about the applicant. More importantly, it contains sensitive personal information about a third party, the applicant’s daughter, who was not a party and did not appear as a witness at the hearing.

2I have concluded that anonymizing the applicant’s name in this Decision is consistent with the Tribunal’s approach to protecting personal or sensitive information in exceptional circumstances. The parties consented to anonymizing the applicant’s name. Anonymizing the applicant’s name does not in any way detract from the public interest or the values of open and transparent justice. By contrast, there may be significant consequences for the applicant’s daughter, who was not a participant in this hearing, and who would be readily identified by the disclosure of her mother’s name. The central focus of the applicant’s allegations is on what she perceives to be the impact of the respondent’s alleged conduct on her daughter’s life and her relationship with her daughter over almost a decade. In my view, that information, which the applicant’s daughter did not consent to release through her participation in this proceeding, is sensitive and private and should be protected through anonymization.

3In her Application and in her testimony, the applicant described a very difficult experience which occurred on April 11, 2013. Following a 911 call from the applicant’s daughter, the applicant was physically apprehended in her home against her wishes by three police officers and taken to hospital for a mental health assessment. The applicant also described a number of other interactions with police officers going back as far as 2006, which she believes have contributed to the deterioration of her relationship with her daughter.

4The applicant self-identifies as a person who has lived with past mental health issues and also the perception by others that she experiences ongoing mental health issues. The applicant states that this perception was a factor in why she was apprehended by the police on April 11, 2013. When she filed this Application, the applicant asked the Tribunal to deal with all of her allegations of discrimination, going back to 2006, because she perceives them to be a series of related incidents of discrimination.

5A hearing was conducted on March 16 and 17, 2015. The applicant was given a full day to testify uninterrupted, except where clarification was required. I also heard testimony from one of the three officers who was involved in the April 11, 2013 incident. The respondent was also able to produce a recording of the 911 call from the applicant’s daughter which resulted in the attendance of the officers at the applicant’s home that day.

6I indicated to the applicant at the close of the hearing that I would carefully consider all of the evidence before drawing any conclusions and that I would provide reasons that she could readily understand. As a result, I have chosen not to include a number of legal citations which, in my view, will not enhance the applicant’s understanding of my reasons. At the same time, I recognize that the applicant is an intelligent, capable woman and is entitled to a full explanation for my findings.

Decision

7The applicant has asked me to make a finding that she experienced discrimination in her interactions with the respondent because of her disability. I am unable to come to that conclusion on the evidence before me. While I will explain my reasons in more detail, the primary reason is that the respondent has been able to provide a credible explanation for why the decision was made to physically apprehend the applicant and take her hospital for assessment on April 11, 2013.

8The applicant’s daughter initiated a call to 911 telling the dispatcher that she was concerned about her mother’s mental state and raised the possibility that the applicant was suicidal. When the officers attended at the applicant’s residence they had to make a difficult decision based on the limited information they had and their observations of the applicant who was extremely distressed and resistant.

9This is not to suggest in any way that I did not believe that the applicant was telling the truth about her experiences. The fact that I cannot make a finding that the Code has been breached should not be interpreted by the applicant as a failure on her part. It simply means that there is not enough evidence to prove discrimination because I accept the explanation of the respondent that there were good reasons for the apprehension and for taking her to the hospital for a mental health assessment. I have concluded that the officers were not acting based on a stereotype of the applicant as a person with a mental illness, but on real information and credible observations which formed the basis of their actions.

10During the hearing, the applicant was candid, sometimes to the point of laughter, about her communication style. She asked me to listen and to be patient because she often wanders onto other topics which are relevant to her but may not be perceived as relevant by the listener. This was one of the applicant’s primary frustrations when she was taken into custody on April 11, 2013. The applicant did not feel that she was being heard or believed by the officers.

11It helped me to understand the applicant when she explained that at times she experiences panic and anxiety and that when she pauses she is searching for the right word and not making up a lie. The applicant described herself as anxious much of the time now. I would describe the applicant’s communication style, particularly in moments when she is anxious and stressed, as a stream of consciousness.

12I was very moved by the applicant’s description of her mother, the challenges her mother faced in her own life and the applicant’s experience of being raised by her. The applicant said that she was particularly sensitive to people accusing her of wanting to take her own life because her mother had suggested that she should “kill herself” when she was young. The applicant also spoke about her life before college, how well she was doing and what a good student she was and how a traumatic, violent event sent her life in a different direction. The applicant has been in treatment and worked with psychiatrists in the past in an effort to get past some of these damaging experiences.

13The applicant also talked about the joy she experienced as a mother and her sadness about the current state of her relationship with her daughter. There has been significant conflict in their relationship since the applicant’s daughter was 15 or 16 years of age. The applicant expressed a very strong desire to find a way to reconcile with her daughter, through counselling or some other method.

14The applicant impressed me as a woman who has struggled with a series of tragic events, difficult family relationships and periods of illness which have at times over taken her life. Yet she remains a positive person who is constantly engaged in learning new things and working to overcome the challenges that she has faced. Despite the fact that I cannot find that the Code has been breached, I want to express to the applicant that she was heard and respected throughout the Tribunal process.

15I also want to express my thanks to counsel for the respondent and his client who did not treat this as a traditional adversarial proceeding but rather an opportunity to learn more about how best to interact with the applicant in the future.

The Evidence

The 911 Call

16The respondent provided a copy of the 911 call which touched off the incident of April 11, 2013. This is a critical piece of evidence. While the applicant disputes both her daughter’s motives for making the call and the description of the applicant that was provided to the dispatcher, this is the first piece of information which was provided to the responding officers. From a legal perspective, that makes the 911 call a very important piece of evidence because it explains why the officers approached the applicant as if she was at risk for suicide.

17The applicant’s daughter reported to the dispatcher that she thought her mother was having an “episode”, that her mother had been diagnosed with “Bi-polar and Schizophrenia” and had been sending her texts all day, some of which suggested that the daughter should call the police and have them put the applicant “out of her misery”.

18The applicant’s daughter told the dispatcher: “I need to have my mother committed because she keeps telling me that she wants me to just go ahead and kill her….and telling me to have the cops kill her…and things like that…I have all these text messages…she’s been texting me all day things like this”.

19The applicant testified that she did not recall sending the text message referred to by her daughter about the police putting her out of her misery. She did acknowledge that she told her daughter either on the phone or in a text message that she should have listened when “Nana told me to kill myself”. The applicant argues that anyone who knew the full context of the applicant’s relationship with her daughter would understand that she was frustrated and just using a figure of speech.

20However, Constable Beck, one of the three officers who attended at the applicant’s home that day, testified that she personally reviewed the applicant’s text messages with her daughter and confirmed the content of the message that the applicant’s daughter had reported to the dispatcher. Constable Back described this as a critical piece of information in her determination that the applicant needed to be evaluated by a doctor.

Constable Beck

21Constable Beck was one of the three officers who attended the call on April 11, 2013. She was on general patrol at the time responding to radio calls. Constable Beck has 13 years of experience with the respondent. She testified with the assistance of her notes which were created at the time of the incident. Her notes make reference to having observed the text message in question as well as having heard the applicant say that she was stressed and “couldn’t take it anymore”. The applicant does not recall making this statement, but in any event, she believes that if the police understood the full context, they would know that she was talking about her relationship with her daughter and not thoughts of suicide.

22Constable Beck has dealt with many calls involving issues of mental health and suicide. She is a designated mental health response officer. When Constable Beck arrives on a call where mental health issues or suicide are suspected, she talks to the individual, assessing them and their environment for indicators that they may be a danger to themselves or others.

23Some of the people that Constable Beck encounters agree to go voluntarily for assessment. In other cases they have to be taken into custody like the applicant was on April 11, 2013. Constable Beck stated that she always prefers it when someone agrees to go to the hospital voluntarily. She has also had many calls where she concludes that a person does not need to be assessed, particularly where they have good family support and agree to follow up with their own doctor. Constable Beck also acknowledged that in some cases the person reporting an incident to 911 might be doing so maliciously, and in those cases, action can be taken against the caller.

24Constable Beck stated that she is guided in circumstances like this by the provisions of the Mental Health Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.7, which authorize an officer to take a person into custody to an appropriate place for examination by a physician where certain criteria or conditions are met. However, Constable Beck stressed that physically taking someone into custody is much like an arrest and therefore, a last resort.

25Constable Beck could not recall if she had ever previously attended at the applicant’s residence or met the applicant before April 11, 2013. She had no information about any previous involvement between the police and the applicant. Constable Beck had information from the 911 call that the applicant’s daughter was concerned that the applicant was having an “episode” and had been diagnosed with mental health issues. She was also aware that the applicant’s daughter had disclosed that she had received a text message from the applicant telling her to call the police, “have them kill me and put me out of my misery” or words to that effect.

26Constable Beck found the applicant’s apartment dirty and unorganized and it appeared to her that the applicant had not been taking good care of herself. She also found the applicant in a very agitated state. Constable Beck recalled that in speaking with the applicant, she was “all over the place” and that it was hard to keep her focussed on the topic at hand. The applicant was jumping from one topic to another making references to being overwhelmed and at one point stated that she “just can’t take it anymore”. Constable Beck stated that the applicant’s state and this comment in particular, were significant in her assessment of the risk of suicide.

27Constable Beck read several of the text messages that the applicant and her daughter had sent back and forth to one another. She read the text message which the applicant’s daughter had referred to in her 911 call. Constable Beck said that everything possible was done to convince the applicant to go voluntarily for an assessment.

28Constable Beck could not recall precisely the words that were used but the applicant was told that her daughter was worried about her and the officers wanted her to see a doctor. The applicant was told that the officers would prefer to have her cooperation. The officers spoke with the applicant for almost an hour trying to secure her cooperation before taking her into custody.

29Constable Beck became concerned when the applicant moved toward the balcony of her 7^th floor apartment, yelling at the officers that she was refusing to go for an assessment. Constable Beck was worried that the applicant would jump and reached out to grab her. She described the applicant as yelling and screaming and resisting the officers who were trying to get the applicant to calm down and comply with their directions. The officers had to physically take the applicant down the stairs because she refused to walk to the police cruiser.

30The applicant alleged while she was in the back of the cruiser one of the officers went through her wallet, pulled out a credit card and made a sarcastic comment. Constable Beck could not recall this happening, but she stated that it would not be uncommon to look for a health card in these circumstances.

31Before the officers left the scene the applicant’s apartment was locked and her dog was left in the care of a neighbour.

32The applicant was taken to a hospital and triaged through the emergency department. Constable Beck turned custody of the applicant over to the hospital pursuant to the normal protocols.

Applicant’s Evidence

33The focus of the applicant’s testimony was on the history of her relationship with her daughter. She believes that the involvement of the police in her life since 2006, when her daughter was a teenager, has had a negative long-term effect on their relationship.

34The applicant firmly believes that the respondent has enabled her daughter over the years in threatening to call the police whenever she is unhappy with the applicant. This is the applicant’s perception. In describing this perception in the narrative of her Application, the applicant says: “Since I was hospitalized in 2006, my daughter has changed her attitude toward me completely. She has used my ‘mental illness’ as an excuse to be completely irresponsible, abusive and extort money from me threatening to have me arrested.”

35The applicant’s daughter did not testify at the hearing and as a result, I did not consider it appropriate to set out details about the applicant’s perception of her daughter except where it was necessary for my Decision.

The April 11, 2013 incident

36In her Application, the applicant provided a written description of the events which took place on April 11, 2013. She also testified in relation to this incident. I have summarized her evidence below.

37The applicant and her daughter were having an argument over the daughter’s cell phone bill. At some point during the phone conversation, the applicant told her daughter something to the effect of: “I should have listened to Nana when she told me to kill myself – I can’t do this with you anymore” and the applicant turned her phone off. When she turned her phone back on, they exchanged text messages and the applicant described some of the messages she received from her daughter as distressing.

38I note that in her cross-examination, the applicant thought that the comment about “Nana” was more likely contained in the approximately 50 text messages that were exchanged between herself and her daughter before the police arrived at her home.

39The applicant heard a knock at her door and saw two female officers through the peep hole. The applicant opened the door, and laughed (out of a sense of frustration) and said something to the effect of: “Oh my god. I cannot believe the police are here.” The applicant acknowledged that she started “blurting things out” trying to explain to the officers that she was having an argument with her daughter over a cell phone bill.

40The applicant found the physical demeanour of the officers, which she described as “having their chests out” as they walked into her apartment, intimidating and she was becoming increasingly frightened. The officers told her that her daughter was worried about her. The applicant was trying to explain that she and her daughter had been having an argument. She described the conversation as going back and forth – the officers wanted the applicant to come with them to be assessed and the applicant was trying to tell the officers why it was not necessary for her to be assessed.

41The applicant acknowledged that she has difficulty giving simple answers to questions and that she “gets off onto things” that are related to the main topic in her mind. She stated that it requires extra listening skills to follow her when she is panicking. During her cross-examination, for example, she interrupted frequently, talking about past and present events, all in a stream of consciousness. The applicant said that she had experienced a lot of trauma and assaults in her life and was told frequently that no one would believe her. As a result, she was particularly panicked when she was speaking with the officers because she had formed the impression that they were not listening to her or believing what she was saying. She acknowledged that she was speaking to the officers in a loud and strong voice.

42The applicant saw a male officer enter her apartment after the female officers. He went into her bedroom and came out carrying her purse. The applicant also talked about putting her cigarette out, checking in on her dog, attempting to heat her coffee up and lighting another cigarette, but the chronology of these events was difficult to establish. The applicant testified more about the impressions these events left her with – like the feeling of intimidation she had when an officer blocked her from getting her coffee – rather than when these incidents occurred in the timeline.

43The applicant’s testimony about the officers looking at her phone was also a bit inconsistent. She said that she did not recall any of the officers looking at her phone and at the same time she was certain they did not look at her phone because she had offered and they had refused.

44The applicant was concerned that the officers were not listening to her and she was becoming fearful of them. The applicant tried to tell the officers how often in the past her daughter had made a call such as this and that their presence at her home was a waste of resources. She tried to tell the officers that she is a person who seeks help when she needs it and that she had no intention of attempting suicide.

45At some point the applicant said she needed a cigarette and she went to open the balcony door. The sequence of events is a bit confusing but it corresponds generally with Constable Beck’s testimony which is that the applicant was physically apprehended at this point in the conversation.

46The applicant does not deny that she resisted the officers when they requested that she come with them voluntarily and that she attempted to resist physically when she was taken into custody. She said that at some point she realized “this is my last stand” and refused to go voluntarily. The applicant said that she was not really thinking – she was panicking. The applicant also recalled that as she was being grabbed by the officers she attempted to lean out the balcony window and yell “help! Police brutality.”

47The applicant’s perspective of what happened during that physical altercation is that it was extremely violent. She recalls that she was grabbed by the arms and “thrown” onto her kitchen table with her head pushed down. She felt a knee in her back and the handcuffs placed on her hands. The applicant says that she asked for her keys and her shoes but the officers refused. She also told the officers that she did not want her dog left with a neighbour and that he had enough food and water for a few days, although she was certain she would be released the next day. The applicant recalled that she was carried out of the building although her recollection is that the officers would not let her walk.

48The applicant was concerned that her apartment door was left open but it was not disputed that once the applicant was in the cruiser, an officer went back upstairs to secure the apartment, the applicant’s apartment keys were put in her purse. The applicant thought the police had left her dog in her apartment as per her instructions. Ultimately the officers decided to leave the dog with her neighbour instead.

49The applicant said that she was pushed and shoved into the police car. The applicant said that at this point she was very scared and she was having “conspiracy theories” going through her head. She could not remember what she said, but she did not want to get into the police car and as a result she might have “stiffened up”.

50The applicant also recalled that one of the female officers was going through her purse and pulled out a credit card and said “ooh, look at this” to the male officer.

51The applicant was taken to hospital. I note that there was no evidence that the applicant was treated for any injuries arising from the incident. The applicant said she had marks on her wrists from the handcuffs. One of the officers offered to loosen her handcuffs and the applicant refused. She did not want to be touched by the officers at this point.

52The applicant spent the night in hospital and was released the next day.

Conclusions

53There is no question that the applicant experienced significant physical and psychological effects from being taken into custody for a medical assessment that she did not believe that she needed. The applicant described herself as terrified and full of anxiety to the point that she was having a panic attack by the time she was taken to the cruiser.

54I agree with the applicant that the events of April 11, 2013 unfolded as a result of a perception, on the part of the respondent, that the applicant may be suffering from a mental health issue and may be at risk for suicide. The applicant was successful in proving this element. However, this finding alone is not sufficient to find that the Code has been breached. I then have to evaluate the explanation offered by the respondent.

55In considering whether the Code has been breached, it is not my role to hold the officers to a standard of perfection. The evidence supports the respondent’s explanation that in the moment the applicant was apprehended, there was cause to do so. I do not know what the officers would have done if they had more information about the applicant, her life history and in particular, the long history of conflict with her daughter. My role is to evaluate the explanation provided to me based on the information the officers had and their observations of the applicant at her home that day.

56There is no dispute about the call made to 911. There is no dispute that the applicant mentioned “killing herself” to her daughter. The applicant’s explanation is that the comment about “Nana” was taken out of context. She also denies that she told her daughter on the phone or by text to have the police come and put her out of her misery.

57However, on this point I believe that Constable Beck was telling the truth when she said that she personally observed the text message that the applicant’s daughter reported to 911. By making this finding I am not suggesting that the applicant was not telling the truth. I believe that the events of that day were so difficult for her that she may not recall sending the text or Constable Beck seeing the text. In any event, there is no dispute that the applicant mentioned suicide to her daughter and this is fundamentally the message that was reported to the officers by their dispatcher.

58There is also no real dispute about how the applicant appeared to the officers when they arrived at her home. She was frustrated and speaking rapidly, moving from one topic to the next in a stream of consciousness. The officers spent almost an hour with the applicant trying to convince her to go with them voluntarily. It is not disputed that the physical confrontation occurred when the applicant moved toward her 7^th story balcony. The applicant thinks that this is a ridiculous explanation for the officers taking physical control of her because “everyone knows” that she is afraid of heights and would never jump from a balcony. But the officers who attended at the applicant’s home that day had never met her and believed, given the limited information they had about her, that there was a risk that she might hurt herself.

59The applicant also acknowledged that she was resisting the officers both verbally and physically. I understand her reasons for doing so. She was very upset at the idea that she was being forced to go to the hospital against her will. But this fact makes it more difficult for the applicant to prove that the physical confrontation is attributable to discrimination.

60The interaction between the applicant and members of the respondent police force which brought the applicant to this Tribunal was extremely distressing to her. The applicant was physically removed from her home and taken to hospital for an assessment which she did not consent to. However, the respondent has provided an acceptable explanation for why the officers took the actions they did on April 11, 2013 and as a result, I cannot find that the Code has been breached.

Other Incidents

61The applicant was asked to describe the various interactions she has had with the respondent since 2006. To assist the applicant in recalling the events, the respondent provided a copy of the occurrence reports. The applicant alleges that these incidents are linked together as part of a series and that they demonstrate a long history of discrimination against her by the respondent. The applicant was asked to describe each incident, how she was disadvantaged and the connection between the disadvantage and her disability.

62The first incident occurred on September 6, 2006; the police responded to a call about a motor vehicle which was being driven erratically. Once they were on scene they determined that the applicant had a “Form 2” to apprehend her and take her to hospital. The Form 2 had been signed by a justice of the peace on September 5, 2006 on the basis that the applicant met the criteria for apprehension under the Mental Health Act.

63The applicant had been having an argument with her daughter about where her daughter had been staying. It was suggested to the applicant that her daughter might stay with the applicant’s parents while the applicant was being assessed. The applicant said to the officers that she would rather be “six feet under”.

64The applicant argues that since this incident her daughter and the police have treated her as if she has ongoing mental health issues and that her daughter has exploited this during arguments between them. However, with respect to this incident, the officers at the scene were responding to a call and it was their job to execute an order from a Justice of the Peace to apprehend the applicant for evaluation. She chose to go voluntarily and received support and assistance. This is an acceptable explanation and therefore I would not find a breach of the Code in relation to this incident.

65On September 19, 2006, the applicant attended at a police station to report that a family member (not the applicant’s daughter) had kicked in the driver’s side door of her car. She was advised that a report would be filed about the incident. There was nothing further that the applicant could point to which would establish any adverse or negative treatment linked to disability that would substantiate a claim of discrimination under the Code.

66On November 2, 2006, the police responded to a call at the applicant’s apartment because she was burning something on her balcony. The applicant agreed that she did not experience discrimination with respect to this incident.

67On March 21, 2008, the applicant attended a police station complaining that her daughter had been kicking the back of her seat while the applicant was driving. Again, the applicant agrees that this is not an allegation of discrimination but an attempt on her part to find some resources for herself and her daughter.

68On October 30, 2009, the applicant went to the police station to file a report about her missing Blackberry. The occurrence report from that date indicates that the applicant came in to report her Blackberry stolen and then began talking about the past, “a ‘Visa Gang’ involving credit cards, drugs, people hunting her down, her apartment, school, etc. Her speech was rapid and her admissions were sporadic and did not have any cohesive order or any particular common point.” There was a discussion with the applicant at the time about her mental health. The applicant adamantly denied needing help. The officer concluded that there were no grounds for apprehension under the Mental Health Act. The applicant says that the police did not file a report because they thought she was mentally ill; however, this is incorrect and the occurrence report was produced at the hearing.

69On August 5, 2010, the applicant reported to a police station because there was damage to the hood of her car. The officer took a look at the vehicle and assessed the damage. The applicant acknowledges that this is not an allegation of discrimination.

70On November 30, 2010, the applicant called the police to report that she believed that she had been the victim of identity theft. The occurrence reports notes that the applicant is listed on CPIC as “mentally unstable”. The examples given by the applicant of identity theft were that she had attempted to register at the food bank for a Christmas food bank and was told that someone giving the same name had come in two years ago and registered for a basket. The staff advised the applicant that the person would have been required to show picture identification. The second example was that the applicant had attempted to purchase a membership at the YMCA two years ago and the staff refused her, asking her what other name she goes by. The applicant alleges that the police did not investigate this because of a perception that she was mentally ill.

71On April 21, 2011, the applicant made a suspicious person report to police. The applicant’s allegations were investigated. She acknowledges that she did not experience any disadvantage in her interactions with the respondent over this incident.

72On May 14, 2011, the police attended a call at the applicant’s home in relation to a disturbance between the applicant and her daughter. The applicant acknowledges that she was not disadvantaged in this interaction and that the police facilitated her daughter’s removal from the apartment.

73On February 6, 2012, the police received a call from the applicant’s daughter, who was worried about the applicant’s behaviour. The applicant received a call from police which did not result in any further action. The applicant acknowledges that she was not immediately disadvantaged by this interaction; however, she says that it is an example of how her daughter threatens to call police when they argue. .

74On October 18, 2012, the applicant’s daughter attended at a police station seeking assistance with respect to her relationship with the applicant. An officer telephoned the applicant to discuss her daughter’s concerns. The applicant acknowledged that she was not disadvantaged in this interaction but she did find it upsetting.

75On January 15, 2013, the applicant’s daughter contacted police again about the applicant’s behaviour. An officer attended at the applicant’s home and spoke with her. Again, the applicant acknowledges that she was not disadvantaged with respect to this interaction with the police. She argues, however, that these are examples of the many times her daughter has attempted to engage the police in an effort to intimidate the applicant.

76On May 8, 2013, the applicant was involved in a minor collision with a car while she was walking. The officer who attended the scene evaluated the evidence and cautioned the driver. The applicant acknowledges that this is not an allegation of discrimination.

77The applicant argues that these incidents, when considered together and in the full context, constitute a series of incidents which demonstrate an ongoing pattern of discrimination by the respondent. I cannot agree with the applicant’s theory of how these incidents are linked to her disability or a perception of disability for the following reasons.

78Only the incident related to the identity theft, November 30, 2010, gives rise to the possibility that the police failed to take any action because of a perception that the applicant was mentally ill. On the other hand, the applicant’s allegations related to events which took place two years prior to the report and the incidents are not particularly compelling examples of identity theft. The applicant also acknowledges that in a number of these incidents she did not experience any adverse conduct by the respondent.

79I cannot find that these interactions with the police form a series of incidents of discrimination and as a result, I dismiss the applicant’s request to have them considered as timely allegations of discrimination.

80I recognize that the applicant has, at various times, been documented as having a history of mental health issues. While the occurrence report of November 30, 2010 makes reference to a notation on CPIC that the applicant is “mentally unstable”, I am not aware of the status of this information. However, I see no evidence that the police have acted upon that perception based on negative stereotypes of the applicant as a person with a mental health issue. In addition, the applicant noted in her testimony that she did not see references to her mental health in subsequent occurrence reports where her particulars are described. That was also true for the officers who attended the call on April 11, 2013, who did not have information, separate and apart from what the applicant’s daughter had reported, that the applicant was suffering from a mental health issue.

81For all of those reasons, the Application is dismissed.