the investigator made the argument that there was reasonable grounds to conclude i was communicating with the property owner - which is clear enough, and really not in dispute.

but, that's a gross misinterpretation of the statute. reasonable grounds, in context, is not related to the fact of communication, but to the question as to whether there was any basis for fear. so, the officer would need to demonstrate that he thought there was a convincing reason i might harm this woman, and there clearly was no such thing.

the law states the following:

264 (1) No person shall, without lawful authority and knowing that another person is harassed or recklessly as to whether the other person is harassed, engage in conduct referred to in subsection (2) that causes that other person reasonably, in all the circumstances, to fear for their safety or the safety of anyone known to them.

so, the thing that's against the law is to scare somebody - not to communicate with them. as we live in a free society, there's no law in canada against repeatedly communicating with people when they've asked you not to.

subsection (2) is a list of ways you can scare somebody, but these behaviours are not criminalized, themselves, outside of the context of being scary.

so, repeatedly communicating with somebody with the intent of scaring them is indeed harassment, under the law; repeatedly communicating with somebody with the intent to sue them, or the intent to annoy them, or the intent to rent property from them is not.

reasonable grounds consequently consists of evidence that i'm scary, not evidence of communication. but, i posted the emails. there is no threat of harm, and i have no criminal record; it is clear that no reasonable grounds existed at all. worse, to suggest that the arrest was justified on reasonable grounds due solely to evidence of communication is both disingenuous and grossly incompetent.

regardless, that's not the right question, because reasonable grounds refers to a crime in process, or a crime that has occurred. it's hard to actually even define reasonable grounds in this context, but one would think it would need to be in the form of a clear and persistent threat - i would have had to state clearly that i intended to harm this woman.

as i've stated repeatedly, this is a crystal clear example of why cops need to get warrants. the cop had no idea what he was talking about; he simply didn't understand what the law said.

and, i'm not surprised by the content of the report...

so, what does this mean?

well, if i get the report in on monday, the director has a time frame to make a decision. and, i'll have to decide if i want to file the discrimination lawsuit before or after the report, given the existing time frames.

despite the finding of "unsubstantiated", there may be enough information in the report to move forward on some further actions.