(S.C.J.); Pirani v. Esmail,  O.J. No. 877, 2014 ONCA 145, 94 E. T.R. (3d) 1,
320 O.A.C. 356; R. v. Brown (2003), 64 O.R. (3d) 161,  O.J. No. 1251,
170 O.A.C. 131, 173 C.C.C. (3d) 23, 9 C.R. (6th) 240, 105 C.R.R. (2d) 132,
36 M.V.R. (4th) 1, 57 W.C.B. (2d) 108 (C.A.); R. v. Richards,  O.J. No. 1420,
120 O.A.C. 344, 26 C.R. (5th) 286, 42 M.V.R. (3d) 70, 42 W.C.B. (2d) 251 (C.A.);
Sherman v. Renwick,  O.J. No. 632,  O. T.C. 135, 103 A.C.W.S. (3d)
853 (S.C.J.); Wilsdon v. Durham (Regional Municipality) Police,  O.J. No.
6289, 2011 ONSC 3419 (S.C.J.)
Statutes referred to
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 7, 8, 9, 10, (a), (b), 12, 15
Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 134(1)
Police Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.15, s. 50(1)
APPEAL from the decision of Myers J. (2015), 126 O.R. (3d)
130,  O.J. No. 2314 (S.C.J.) that the police officers did not
engage in racial profiling and from a damages award.
Andrew J. MacDonald, for appellant.
David A. Gourlay, for respondents.
The judgment of the court was delivered by
SACHS J.: —
 On a winter’s evening in Toronto, the appellant, a black
man, was walking on a downtown street when he was stopped
by two Toronto Police Service officers. An interaction ensued
during which the respondent Constable Pak punched the appellant in the face twice, emptied the appellant’s pockets without
his consent, and left the appellant lying on his handcuffed hands
in the cold for 20 to 25 minutes.
 In a decision dated May 7, 2015 [Elmardy v. Toronto Police
Services Board (2015), 126 O.R. (3d) 130,  O.J. No. 2314],
Myers J. found that the officers had no reasonable suspicion of
criminal conduct when they initiated contact with the appellant,
but declined to find that the conduct of the officers was racially
motivated. He did find that Constable Pak had committed a
battery on the appellant; that the appellant’s detention was
unlawful and a breach of his rights under s. 9 of the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms; that the search of the appellant’s pockets was a breach of his rights under s. 8 of the
Charter; and that the appellant’s rights under s. 10(a) and (b) of
the Charter were violated when he was not told why he was
detained or given his rights to counsel upon being detained.
 The trial judge awarded the appellant $5,000 in damages
in relation to the battery, $2,000 in relation to the s. 9 Charter