them to blatantly and aggressively violate the appellant’s constitutional rights.
 The trial judge found that the officers’ real motivation for
stopping the appellant was so that they could “card” him by filling in information on a 208 card. This begs the question of why
the officers would single the appellant out for “carding”.
 However, the trial judge also found that the officers lied
about why they stopped the appellant and “backfilled” a purpose
after the fact. Lying about the real reason for a stop is another
basis for drawing the inference that what motivated the stop
was the appellant’s race and colour. As noted in Brown, at
para. 45, the inference that a police officer is lying about why
she or he singled out an individual for attention is a circumstance that is “capable of supporting a finding that the stop was
based on racial profiling”. Such a finding becomes even more
compelling when, as here, the “lies” that the police chose to tell
about why they stopped the individual are based on racial stereotypes, such as the belief that black men are more likely to be on
bail and more likely to be carrying weapons.
 Contrary to the finding of the trial judge that there is no
evidence from which one can draw the inference that the conduct of the police officers was racially motivated, there is no
other reasonable inference that is available from all of the evidence. The explanation the officers gave for their behaviour
was both rejected by the trial judge and infected with racial
stereotypes. Given this, there can be no issue that the appellant’s right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law
without discrimination based on race under s. 15 of the Charter
was also violated.
Damages for the battery
 With respect to general damages for the battery committed upon the appellant, the trial judge found as follows [at paras.
42, 43 and 110]:
It is clear that Mr. Elmardy’s physical injuries were very minor. He was
unemployed at the time so he did not miss any work. He has no out-of-
pocket expenditures. His bruises all healed within several days to a week.
His knees healed although he now complains of knee pain he concedes that
he cannot ascribe cause for that pain to the incident in question.
Mr. Elmardy raises emotional concerns regarding his feelings of dignity
and his current nervousness or suspicion in dealing with the police in light
of the events to which he attests. But there is no medical report supporting significant psychological injury and no specific damages are sought on