Strip away what the Charter says should be; sex, outward appearance and social status etc. The 2 parties are individuals citizen A and citizen B.
Indictable offences happened on 2 different occasions and are committed by A against B and nothing is done about it. Complaints are made on numerous occasions by B about A’s illegal acts (complaints easily verifiable emails etc) to the first response agent (Hamilton Police) of the Ministry of the Attorney General. On one occasion citizen B is told by some of said members of the police to “suck it up…” and that they didn’t intend to enforce the law. The direct result of said indictable offences and lack of action by Hamilton Police is two fold in that it:
1) Denys documentary evidence to be produced and then entered to mount a competent appeal to another court of competent jurisdiction (Ontario Human Rights Commission / Tribunal) in seperate matter.
o Said matter is dismissed, and on every appeal after, right on to a Request for Reconsideration is dismissed relying on Res Judicata. The reason for the original dismissal of said matter is a non response to government correspondence sent to citizen A’s residence clearly marked and stamped “Confidential” addressed to citizen B. Re Indictable infractions against section 345 and or theft 322 of the Criminal Code of Canada and or infractions against the Canada Post Act
2) Victimization of a victim failure to protect citizen B from citizen A and does it not in fact help citizen A from being held equally accountable before and under law also a direct violation of sec. 15 of the Charter.
3) If what is outlined is applied is that not Actus Rea of Charter violations? What is up for speculation is Mens Rea in regards to the Ministry’s first response agent’s actions after the original complaint was received.

Yes a relationship was ended 3 years ago between A and B with little to no contact since and the police have as of yet produced any paper work or proof of any kind of harassment or illegal acts committed by citizen A or B other than those complained about by citizen B against A. Are these not Charter of Rights and Freedoms violations according to sections: 15. (1) 32. (1) and the lack of enforcement of said Chartered Rights would therefore be another infraction in Section 12?
All responses will be considered purely layman’s advice. Said advice can not be interpreted in any way shape or form as legal advice and or consultation.

Now add to that the events that occurred when officers Dell and Chu were interested in talking with citizen B after citizen A made a complaint about citizen B around event 84 which takes place on July 21 2009 around 3pm
Could this be the Mens Rea intimidation threats of charges on behalf of Citizen A by the police against Citizen B even though it was Citizen A who has been committing crimes against citizen B?
Charter violations prefrential treatment of citizen A over B there are 2 differences between A and B social status and sex so can we connect the dots and say that the Hamilton Police give preferential or discriminatory treatment to people from one sex and actually engage in intimidation tactics on behalf of one sex even though that sex has been the perpetrator of indictable offences against citizen B ( a male)