breach, $1,000 for the s. 8 breach, and $1,000 for the s. 10
breaches. He also awarded punitive damages in the amount of
$18,000, twice the amount of the aggregate award under the
other heads of damages, and granted declaratory relief. Finally,
he awarded the appellant his costs fixed on a substantial
 This is an appeal of the trial judge’s failure to make a finding that the appellant was a victim of racial profiling, his failure
to find that the appellant’s rights under ss. 7, 12 and 15 of the
Charter were breached, and of his damages award. On this
appeal, the appellant submits that the trial judge committed a
palpable and overriding error when he found that there was no
evidence that the conduct of the officers was racially motivated.
This in turn led the trial judge to err in his damages assessments as he failed to give effect to the need to deter and punish
police officers who engage in violent, abusive and unconstitutional conduct based on racial profiling.
 For the reasons that follow, I would allow the appeal and
increase the award of damages for the constitutional violations
to $50,000. (According to the Supreme Court of Canada, these
damages can only be awarded against the respondent Toronto
Police Services Board.) I would also award punitive damages
against both respondents in the amount of $25,000. I would not
increase the damages in relation to the battery.
The Racial Profiling Issue
 On January 15, 2011, Constable Pak was driving a police
cruiser, accompanied by Constable Poole, when the officers saw
the appellant walking in the opposite direction and on the opposite side of the street. Constable Pak immediately observed that
the appellant was a black male.
 Constable Pak testified that immediately after seeing the
appellant (who was walking alone), he had a hunch that he may
be violating bail terms. As the officer described it, a person on
bail would usually have to be accompanied by their surety and
would not be walking alone. Constable Pak noted that the appellant looked at him as his police cruiser drove by.
 Constable Poole also saw the appellant look at the police
cruiser as it passed. She had an immediate concern that the
appellant might be carrying a weapon as he had his hands in
 The officers did a U-turn and pulled up alongside the
appellant. They asked him questions. According to the trial