AMENDED SUBMISSIONS
for oral hearing on November 25, 2015
in Port Coquitlam Provincial Court Room 7
of disputed charge under the Trespass Act and violation Ticket 3531
issued under the Offence Act on September 27, 2014
Your Honour, I am Dianne Bond. I own and occupy a townhouse at 1215 Lansdowne Drive in Coquitlam. I am defending myself against a charge of trespass, a violation ticket, a monetary fine, and a RCMP threat of “worse” if I return to a recreational facility (commonly known as a “deck”) that is built on common property and governed under the Strata Property Act (referred to herein as the “Act.”)
This matter arose out of accusations that I was on my neighbour’s limited common property without permission on September 27, 2014. The accusation is not true. In fact, the truth is quite the opposite. The registered strata plan shows that the property is not limited common property, it is common property that I have every right to access. I actually bought and paid for and own significantly more of it than my neighbour does. It is my neighbour who is taking it for her own exclusive use without permission, and permission for exclusive use is specifically required under the Act. The Act also provides for imposing user fees, which my neighbour is acting to avoid. The RCMP is supporting adverse possession of common property contrary to the Act, while half of the strata council, including my neighbour, are taking common property for their own unjust enrichment at the expense of others, creating a unique nuisance that is harming me in particular.
My neighbour made false accusations against me to the police committing mischief under the Criminal Code for her own unjust enrichment. Instead of charging her, the RCMP charged me and gave me a ticket in violation of the Trespass Act, Offence Act, and Strata Property Act, as well as contrary to a preponderance of material evidence and decades of protest. As a result I have been obliged to exhaust myself trying defend against a gang of scofflaws supported by the RCMP charging me with trespass under s. 4 of the Trespass Act, issuing a violation ticket under the Offence Act, and intimidating me with the threat of “worse” if I return to the sundeck.
During investigations into police misconduct the RCMP held that public complaints about the police are the “main offence” and are unsubstantiated. That's very convenient, but the related conflicts of interest are not hard to see, nor is the damage to me that is ending up in my toilet.
Instead of being presumed innocent until proven guilty I was denied access to justice and punished with over a year of delay in scheduling this hearing in callous disregard of my health and reputation. The whole of the circumstances contributed to a betrayal of trust in the law that was so demoralizing and debilitating that despite an inescapable need to defend myself against ongoing oppression I had to withdraw from seeking a remedy in Supreme Court proceedings. I found that trying to manage material evidence under such adversity triggers a sickening sense of aversion that is toxic to my health and not conducive successful litigation.
The RCMP combined a disregard of registered strata records, governing legislation, and graphic corruption with misrepresentations of evidence and discriminatory assessments of credibility and guilt or innocence to compel me to go to exhausting lengths to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that I am not guilty of the allegations made against me. Then as soon as the matter was to be brought before the court the RCMP withdrew and fled - depriving me of the scheduled hearing - after a torturous year of insult and delay.
LIST OF MATERIAL RELIED ON
(BC enactments were retrieved from http://www.bclaws.ca)
- UN General Assembly, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 10 December 1948, 217 A (III), available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b3712c.html
- Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part 1 of the Constitution Act, 1982
- Criminal Code [RSC 1985] CHAPTER 46, ss. 140, 361, 397, and 430
- Limitation Act [SBC 2012] CHAPTER 13, at s. 28(1) (Acts are at http://www.bclaws.ca)
- Offence Act [RSBC 1996] CHAPTER 33, at ss. 5, 10(1)(a), 14(1), 78, 79
- Strata Property Act [SBC 1998] c. 43 at ss. 1, 26, 31, 32, 35, 66, 71, 73, 74, 76, 134, 135, and 291(2)
- Strata Property Regulation B.C. Reg. 43/2000 at ss. 6.9, 14.4(1)(c) and (n)
- Trespass Act [RSBC 1996] CHAPTER 462 at ss. 4 and 4.1
- Title Search for Strata Lot 25 DL385 Group 1 NWD Strata Plan NW2671
- NW2671's registered Strata Plan at pages 1, 3, 13, 14, 16, and 17
- Valuation of Residential Strata Properties (from 2009 BC Assessment website, as updated)
- List of BC Assessment values 1989 to 2008
- 2015 Property Assessment Notice, for building and land
- Bylaws 4.1 and 23.4 of Strata Plan NW2671
- Appendix A to special Resolution #1, with Agreement and drawings from AGM Notice and Agenda
- Unit Entitlement Proposed Strata Fees Jan 1/14 to Dec 31/14, from AGM Agenda
- Special Resolution #1 with preamble on p. 2 of AGM Minutes of April 8, 2014
- Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th edition definitions of: “Absurdity”.,“Contra proferentem”., “Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius”., and “Meeting of minds”.
- Drawing dated 1988-2013 depicting decades of loss, ongoing nuisance, and increasing oppression
- Photos of views with, and without, trees
- Photos of trellis planters and posts the strata installed on Unit 409's limited common property patio
- Photo of the new sundeck with the chair I used on September 27, 2014
- Letters dated August 27 and 28, 2014, protesting against harassment by Councillor Georgia Title
- Affidavit of strata agent, Jolanta Teszka, sworn September 29, 2015
- Responding affidavit of Dianne Bond sworn October 8, 2015
- Notice of Withdrawal, filed in BC Supreme Court No. S165066 on October 13, 2015
- Summary from RCMP’s partial disclosure of Police Records, with draft request for corrections
- Link to http://sunridgecoquitlam.blogspot.ca/
HISTORY
1. The subject sundeck is part of Sunridge Estates, also known as Strata Plan NW2671 (herein referred to as the “strata”) which has 68 townhouses located on a steep 5.5 acre south facing slope at 1215 Lansdowne Drive.
2. In this particular strata corporation distinctions in terminology are material. The key terms are “patio” and “balcony” which are all “limited common property” on the strata plan for the exclusive use of the owner of the adjacent strata lot and the word “deck” which is a “recreational facility” added to common property which all owners share an interest in according to their proportionate unit entitlement and is governed by mandatory requirements under the Act and the bylaws of the strata corporation. Each 2-bedroom unit has a balcony and each 3-bedroom unit has a patio in proportion to unit entitlement in sizes shown on the strata plan which correspond to formulas for sharing common property and expenses. Sundecks do not conform to proportionate unit entitlement formulas for sharing property or funding expenses, they are not shown on the strata plan, and they are not designated as limited common property for anyone’s exclusive use.
3. Over a dozen sundecks have been added to the complex since the developer built the first sundeck on the common property north of the unit above mine as an appeasement after the building I live in sunk about 6 inches shortly after it was built. The complex has no other recreational facilities, council’s authority to deny access is restricted under both the Act and the strata’s bylaws.
4. Contrary to the claims against me, not one sundeck in this complex has ever been designated as limited common property. All owners are entitled to benefit from the sundecks in the complex in accordance with their proportionate unit entitlement and corresponding funding formulas, including me.
5. Members of council are claiming to own sundecks personally and are claiming that they are limited common property for their own exclusive use, contrary to both fact and law. They are deceiving others to avoid paying user fees for the rental value of common property and the extra expenses for their exclusive benefit, which have cost the strata corporation hundreds of thousands of dollars so far and forced other owners to sell. They are profiting from their own wrongs and other members are trapped by fear if they are challenged or if the strata corporation imposes user fees.
6. Prior to giving notice to use the new sundeck on September 27, 2014, my proposals for nuisance remedies included everything from reinstating material trees, to imposing user fees or reinstating proportionately shared use and benefit of common property, to building a cantilevered platform in the air space and restoring a ground level safety buffer between patios, to payment of rent for use of my patio space for the benefit of others, to a fence for an offsetting dog run, and finally in 2014, to a sufficient extension to restore the space, privacy, and funding taken away from me contrary to the Act.
7. On April 8, 2014, the members at the Annual General Meeting approved a special resolution to allow changes in the use and appearance of common property under s. 71 of the Act to replace cultivated green space with sundecks in 3 locations, subject to specific terms set out in Appendix A, including acknowledgement that members would be saved harmless from loss and the installations would not affect unit entitlement.
8. This was the first time that members of the strata corporation had signed a petition forcing council to give owners a vote on extra decking proposals after decades of bogus delays and repeated refusals to put the matter on the agenda. Marnie Hennan, a member of council using an unfamiliar name, Barbara Hennan, took advantage and obtained approval for installation of a sundeck on the common property to the immediate north of her Unit 408, across the main driveway to the south of my Unit 409.
9. When notice of the motion was sent to the members of the strata corporation Councilor Hennan did not disclose any conflict of interest under s. 32 of the Act, recluse herself from the 3/4 vote under s. 33, disclose the true number of bushes uprooted or affected by the installation, nor the fact that the slope would be excavated, and she did not request or receive permission for exclusive use of the sundeck under s. 76, nor pay user fees for exclusive use of common property.
10. The new sundeck was the first recreational facility to be legally added to the complex with permits and a 3/4 vote, it has no lock on the gate, nobody was granted permission for exclusive use of it, and I had given the strata council notice of my intended use well before I sat on it reading a book on September 27, 2014, shortly after it was built.
11. Councilor Georgia Title demanded that I leave, yelling that it was limited common property when she had long held knowledge to the contrary, and when I reminded her that sundecks are not limited common property, she pushed or aggressively drove Councillor Hennan toward Unit 408, yelling at her to call the police, attracting the attention of neighbours who came out to see what the shouting was about.
12. No extra decking in this strata complex has ever been designated as limited common property under s. 74 of the Act, the deck was approved under s. 71, sundecks are the only recreational facilities in the complex, and nobody had the right to deny me access.
13. To defend myself I went home to get source documents, and when the RCMP came I told them:
a. that the sundeck was common property I was entitled to access and pointed out the registered Strata Plan showing the location of Unit 408's south facing Balcony and Limited Common Property corresponding to proportionate unit entitlements;
b. that Councillor Hennan did not receive permission for exclusive use of the sundeck or pay user fees and pointed out restrictions under the Act on exclusive use;
c. that the loss to me arising out of violation of proportional unit entitlement sharing and significant changes in the use and appearance of common property contrary to the Act is unique and extreme and pointed out a graphic illustration of ongoing oppression attributable to council’s persistent refusal to enforce the strata’s nuisance bylaw 4.1;
d. that Councilor Title has a history of retaliation against me, most recently cutting down an important tree and shouting at me long and loud when I delivered her newspaper to her door, claiming face to face that I deliberately frightened her cat as an attack on her, when I did no such thing – I vent my frustration consistently in blogs and reams of letters, and her recent destruction of the tree between the windows in my living room and the next building ultimately provoked me to draft a notice of civil claim – which I showed to the RCMP.
14. When we were talking to the RCMP Councillor Title made the astonishing claim that she didn’t know it was me that she had been accusing of scaring her cat and said “why don’t you just move.”
15. The RCMP said that Jolanta Teszka, the strata manager, had advised that I was “on my neighbour's limited common property without permission.” I reminded him of the distinction in terms between the new “deck” and Councillor Hennan’s “balcony” and advised him that I intended to return to the sundeck to stage a sit down protest as decks are not limited common property. At that point Constable Anselmo gave me a ticket for trespass, threatened that “worse” would happen if I returned to the sundeck, and told me to have a nice day.
16. I felt too shocked and betrayed by the ticket and continual threat to have a nice day. Or a nice year when my rights were denied, and the RCMP claimed to investigate my complaint but never interviewed me or let on to me that Ms. Teszka was depicting s.71 as s.74, which was such a ludicrous notion that it never occurred to me, and blindfolded as I was I never thought to argue it.
17. Nobody ever told me what the RCMP meant by “worse” but I have not dared return to the sundeck to enjoy myself, stage a sit down protest, or exercise my rights under the Act for over a year. The RCMP intimidated me with fear that “worse” could mean ticket-provoked brawls, being forcibly arrested, or assaulted, and shot if I tried to escape being held in jail for 6 months, or who knows how long if I had to wait 14 months for a hearing and during imprisonment could still not convince officials to accept the material facts and evidence proving my innocence, with no right to a jury and no money to pay for an appeal, a $2,000 fine or a lawyer. For over a year the ticket also served to defame me, effectively attempted to extort money from me and treat me as guilty or compel me to attend this hearing armed with proof beyond any reasonable doubt, while those breaking the law profit from their own wrongs with no problem. It’s unspeakably sickening.
18. I have reasonable and probable grounds to believe and do believe that the ladies acting against me acted without authority, with ulterior motives attributable to unjust enrichment and disparaging my reputation, and made false accusations with intent to mislead owners and police and divert suspicion onto me when they knew or ought to have known they were acting contrary to the Act, in excess of jurisdiction, and that prejudicial action against me was likely to be committed in consequence.
19. The RCMP followed a theme that disparages my credibility, instead of investigating evidence of crime by governing authorities; they made crazy-making charges against me rather than heed the law, they made no effort to mitigate the damage they caused, and they are protected from full disclosure.
They ignored my complaint of the strata taking space on my patio despite my protest, treated it as if it is not trespass on my limited common property – and accused me of trespass for sitting on a recreational sundeck which is common property for everyone’s benefit. The discriminatory actions against me resulted in prejudicial police records and bullied and intimidated out of exercising my legitimate rights for nearly 14 months, or longer if police action that encourages public mischief and conduct contrary to the Act is tolerated by this court and I am not exonerated. This needs to be rectified.
ISSUES
1. Did the provisions of the governing strata enactments, my registered ownership, proportionate unit entitlement interest, or colour of right grant me inherent authority to sit on the sundeck as I did on September 27, 2014?
2. Was the sundeck designated as limited common property for Councillor Hennan’s exclusive use under the Act or did those acting against me have any other authority to deny me access to it as they did?
3. Did those acting against me commit public mischief or otherwise violate the Criminal Code of Canada?
ANALYSIS
1. Senior officers of the strata corporation are acting against me contrary to the Act, with more experience than conscience in defaming me, perpetuating unjust enrichment and oppression, and interfering with my lawful use and enjoyment of property that I own a far greater interest in than any member on council, and the secretary and strata agent excluded incriminating evidence from minutes that they provided to the police without my knowledge.
2. I submit a preponderance of evidence indicating that I have cause to show that:
a. the sundeck is not designated as limited common property, it is common property, which I am entitled under the Act to share the benefit of in proportion to unit entitlement and registered ownership, and I had colour of right to access it as I did;
b. all residential strata owners share an interest in the benefits of common property in accordance with unit entitlement formulas and have inherent statutory authority to access a recreational facility on the common property unless it is designated as limited common property or council temporarily denies access for breaking a related bylaw or rule or grants another owner permission for short term exclusive use, with or without user fees, all of which is governed by mandatory procedures under the Act, and not one of those mandatory procedures occurred;
c. the complainants breached their jurisdiction and induced the RCMP to deny me access to the sundeck when this strata corporation’s bylaws prohibit council from delegating its authority to deny an owner access to a recreational facility, when sundecks such as the one I sat on are the only recreational facilities in the complex, the Act specifically restricts council’s authority to restrict access, and nobody was entitled to maintain an action of trespass against me, or deny my rights as they did;
d. the ladies acting against me acted contrary to the Act, omitted a material particular from the minutes, namely Appendix A, with pre-meditated ulterior motives to mislead others, contravened their authority and deceived the RCMP to induce them to deny my rights, and disparaged my reputation to undermine my credibility and bolster their own, when the ladies knew the facts, material sections of the governing Act, and the nature of their contraventions, or ought to have known and acted in reckless disregard;
e. law enforcement officials deprived me of equal protection under the law without discrimination and bullied, threatened, and intimidated me out of exercising my rights to property and freedom of expression or assembly, and the justice system further interfered with my rights for nearly 14 months and deprived me of a public hearing during a reasonable time.
3. On May 27, l988, I moved into Unit 409, and the land title search shows that I have held continuous ownership together with an interest in the common property in proportion to the unit entitlement of my strata lot ever since the transfer date, and much longer than the complainants or anyone else.
4. The strata plan registered in the Land Title Office shows at:
p.1, the direction of North and the locations of Building 7 where I live relative to Building 8 where Councilor Hennan lives, and the indications on the Legend for Balcony, Patio, and Limited Common Property
p.3, Form 1, proportionate Unit Entitlement, with lot and sheet numbers, and comparative unit entitlement interests of “47" for my strata lot 25, p. 13; and “36" for Councillor Henna’s strata lot 32, p. 14
p. 13, Limited Common Property for my Strata Lot 25 shown as a 10.0 m2 east facing Patio, a size roughly proportionate to my strata fees and unit entitlement interest
p. 14, Limited Common Property for Councillor Hennan’s Strata Lot 32 shown as a 7.2 m2 south facing Balcony, roughly proportionate to her strata fees and unit entitlement interest
pages 16 + 17, showing dealings affecting the common property up to November 24, 2015 do not include a limited common property designation under s. 74 of the Act.
5. The Criminal Code at s. 140 says
Every one commits public mischief who, with intent to mislead, causes a peace officer to enter an investigation by making a false statement that accuses some other person of having committed an offence; or doing anything intended to cause some other person to be suspected of having committed an offence that the other person has not committed, or to divert suspicion from himself; or reporting that an offence has been committed when it has not been committed.
6. I was acting lawfully, and Jolanta Teszka, Georgia Title, and Marnie Hennan were not. They denied my rights and made a fraudulent accusation that I was on my neighbour’s limited common property without permission in flagrant, blatant disregard of the Act, causing the RCMP to enter an investigation based on false pretenses.
7. Since the accusations were made by those in power, suspicion was placed on me and diverted off of themselves for misconduct attributable to unjust enrichment and irresponsible self interest that has been carrying on for years while I have been vilified and overwhelmed to the point that I am incoherent and practically speechless at meetings, sickened and exhausted at home and work, and too revolted to marshall reams of evidence in litigation.
8. The Criminal Code at s. 361 says
361. A false pretence is a representation of a matter of fact either present or past, made by words or otherwise, that is known by the person who makes it to be false and that is made with a fraudulent intent to induce the person to whom it is made to act on it.
9. Jolanta Teszka and Georgia Title are not illiterate or inexperienced, they speak with a voice of authority that influences others, and their claim that the sundeck was limited common property was intended to induce the RCMP to deny me access contrary to the Act.
10. The strata management repeatedly refused to put remedial proposals on the agenda as I made proposals with increasing urgency, particularly since 2005 when the strata made modifications uniquely harmful to Unit 409, changing the swing-in style of patio door to a swing-out style that obstructs openings and takes 30 inches of dining space away from a narrow patio already further narrowed by trellis planters until not enough space was left for my patio furniture and sabotaged Unit 409's exterior taps and rendered them unfit for the purpose intended, and paid for, and persistently refused to extend the pipes to allow my hose to be screwed on normally again. The strata rendered Unit 409's patio unfit for the purpose for which it was intended, purchased, and used, and I went from enjoying my patio every summer for 15 years, to not using it at all for approximately 10 years, until the daily frustration eventually compelled me to mitigate the additional loss in the only way that I could. Under protest I reinstated the swing-in style door, which cost me approximately $3,000 and bought hose adaptors to enable me to once again water potted plants on my patio. No other unit in the complex was so deprived and exploited, and no other owner was so persecuted, not even close.
11. Members of the management team who are acting against me contrary to the Act persistently misrepresent facts and law, exploit ambiguity, and create deceptive strata records with ulterior motives attributable to panoramic views, exclusive use of recreational sundecks, and avoiding user fees, contrary to the best interests of the strata corporation. Particulars include, but are not limited to, persistently referring to patios as decks, deceptively mixing up decks with balconies, pretending that common property that is not limited common property is for their own exclusive use contrary to the Act; mixing proposals for luxuries and privilege into proposals to remedy nuisance and mitigate unfairness; destroying millions of dollars worth of trees to create panoramic views; persistently withholding material strata records, disparaging me with police action and routinely generating minutes intended to be deceptive and so confusing that strata owners are conditioned to give up reasonable expectations, skip over the gibberish, and try to glean whatever sense they can make out of any discernable scraps.
12. I was uniquely oppressed and deprived of common property, strata records, insurance benefits, repairs, and maintenance contrary to the Act, for decades before I decided to visit the sundeck, and I am tired of being victimized by the same trickery passed on like a baton, endlessly.
13. The management team relies on tampering with and withholding strata records and claiming ignorance of material facts and law to generate confusion and “reasonable doubt” about the same common property issues, year after year, making misrepresentations and accusations against me intended to bolster their own interests and disparage and discredit me to induce others to join or support and empower the gang. The same tactics have been practised and polished in this strata corporation for over 25 years.
14. The Criminal Code at s. 397 says
Every one who, with intent to defraud, destroys, mutilates, alters, falsifies or makes a false entry in, or omits a material particular from, or alters a material particular in, a book, paper, writing, valuable security or document is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.
15. Councilor Title is the strata secretary responsible for severing Appendix A from the minutes, and Jolanta Teszka presented those minutes to the RCMP as evidence.
16. Appendix A shows that the sundeck was not designated as limited common property as they claimed.
17. I am tired of ranting about the same fraudulent tactics being endlessly passed from council to council with identical intent and identical results, year after year, I am tired of being exploited, I am tired of minutes being tampered with, I am tired of being denied strata records, I am tired of being accused of harassment to thwart ss. 35 and 36 of the Act, and I am tired of hired professionals acting against me because they are getting paid and care more about keeping their clients than the truth hitting them in the face. I am tired of being bullied, but believe it or not, I am too broken and exhausted after over 25 years of oppression in this strata to marshall evidence to keep on proving all that I know from due diligence and direct personal experience beyond a reasonable doubt.
18. The Criminal Code at s. 430 says
(1) Every one commits mischief who wilfully (a) destroys or damages property; (b) renders property dangerous, useless, inoperative or ineffective; (c) obstructs, interrupts or interferes with the lawful use, enjoyment or operation of property; or (d) obstructs, interrupts or interferes with any person in the lawful use, enjoyment or operation of property.
19. These ladies wilfully obstructed, interrupted, and interfered with me in my lawful use and enjoyment of the new sundeck by fraudulently inducing the police to charge me with trespass and threaten me with worse if I accessed the sundeck. In addition, Councilor Title wilfully destroyed trees and landscaping and correspondingly interfered with my lawful enjoyment of the property, Councilor Hennan wilfully excavated the slope, rendered the space under a projection dangerous, replaced the landscaping with a sundeck and then interrupted and interfered with my lawful enjoyment of it, and President Lynda Baker wilfully obstructed, interrupted or interfered with my lawful use and enjoyment of my strata plan patio and sabotaged remedial action by inducing voters at the AGM to believe that reinstating the function of my patio would trespass on the patio of my neighbour by answering the question, “Who owns the deck?” by claiming that her lawyer said that she “definitely” owns the deck adjacent to Unit 412, without naming the lawyer or reporting him to the Law Society.
20. All my attempts to remedy oppression arising out of extra decking and views have been futile, so it seems that I cannot stop members of the strata management team from defrauding me of property rights and strata management services mandated under the Act, willfully destroying trees, or affecting the market price of strata lots offered for sale to the public by deceit with intent to defraud, but I am tired of all that corruption going on year after year, and even though the RCMP is supporting it, I am relying on the court to stop it.
21. The Limitation Act at s. 28(1) says that:
“Except as specifically provided by this or any other Act, no right or title in or to land may be acquired by adverse possession.”
yet the strata management team and the RCMP are giving effect to adverse possession of the land under extra decking and denying my rights contrary to the Act.
22. The Offence Act at s. 5 says (x-ref: s. 291 of the Strata Property Act):
5 A person who contravenes an enactment by doing an act that it forbids, or omitting to do an act that it requires to be done, commits an offence against the enactment.
23. I did not contravene an enactment, those acting against me did. In addition, the Strata Property Act says at s. 291(2) that Section 5 of the Offence Act does not apply, and based on that alone, it is my understanding that the RCMP were not authorized to take the action against me that they took on September 27, 2014, and neither were my neighbours or members of the strata management team.
24. The Offence Act at s. 10(1)(a) says:
10 (1) Judicial notice must be taken of the following:
(a) a proclamation or order of the Lieutenant Governor in Council;
25. I take this to mean that the court must take notice of the Strata Property Act as governing strata property matters. In the whole of the circumstances, I was stunned when law enforcement officials bullied me out of my rights and gave me a ticket for trespass, threatening worse if I returned to the sundeck.
26. The Offence Act at s. 14(1) says:
14 (1) An enforcement officer may complete and sign a violation ticket for contravention of an enactment referred to in the regulations.
27. The Strata Property Act is not referred to in said regulations, so from what I can tell, the officer’s discretion to issue a ticket is restricted, and I did not contravene an enactment either.
28. The Offence Act at s. 78 says:
78 (1) If the justice dismisses an information, the justice may, if requested by the defendant, draw up an order of dismissal, and must give to the defendant a certified copy of the order of dismissal.
(2) A copy of an order of dismissal, certified in accordance with subsection (1), is, without further proof, a bar to any subsequent proceedings against the defendant in respect of the same cause.
29. I need to be exonerated, and I am requesting an order for dismissal.
30. The Offence Act at s. 79 says:
79 (1) The justice may, in his or her discretion, award and order costs the justice considers reasonable and not inconsistent with the fees established by section 80 to be paid (b) to the defendant by the informant, if the justice dismisses an information.
(2) An order under subsection (1) must be set out in the conviction, order, or order of dismissal.
31. I am requesting an order for costs as a ticket was issued on false information. If s. 5 of the Offence Act does not apply to matters governed under the Strata Property Act, and the Strata Property Act is not referred to the regulation, and judicial notice must be taken of that in addition to the evidence, it would be reasonable that the matter be dismissed with costs.
32. The Act at s. 1 says that:
"common assets" means personal property held by or on behalf of a strata corporation,
"common expenses" means expenses (a) relating to the common property and common assets of the strata corporation, or (b) required to meet any other purpose or obligation of the strata corporation;
"common property" means (a) that part of the land and buildings shown on a strata plan that is not part of a strata lot,
"limited common property" means common property designated for the exclusive use of the owners of one or more strata lots;
"unit entitlement" of a strata lot means the number indicated in the Schedule of Unit Entitlement established under section 246, that is used in calculations to determine the strata lot's share of (a) the common property and common assets, and (b) the common expenses and liabilities of the strata corporation.
33. The Act at s. 26 says must, meaning that it is mandatory for the strata council to exercise the powers and perform the duties of the strata corporation:
26 Subject to this Act, the regulations and the bylaws, the council must exercise the powers and perform the duties of the strata corporation, including the enforcement of bylaws and rules.
34. The RCMP, the strata agent, or Councillors Hennan and Title acting alone, are not the strata council.
35. This authority belongs to the strata council, and it must be exercised subject to the Act, with decisions made by votes recorded in minutes; unfortunately, in practice the word “must” is wrongfully interpreted as meaning when court ordered and until then strata management, lawyers, and police treat mandatory provisions under the Act as irrelevant, or discretionary guidelines, not binding law.
36. The Act at s. 31 says:
In exercising the powers and performing the duties of the strata corporation, each council member must (a) act honestly and in good faith with a view to the best interests of the strata corporation, and (b) exercise the care, diligence and skill of a reasonably prudent person in comparable circumstances.
37. The RCMP behaved as though the strata management team acted honestly and in good faith despite evidence to the contrary and denied my rights contrary to the Act so I feel compelled to go on at length about oppression and public mischief.
38. Half the members of council are unscrupulously taking approximately twice their proportionate share of common property, taking strata corporation sundecks for their own exclusive use contrary to the Act, at the expense of others contrary to the best interests of the strata corporation, shirking their duty to enforce the bylaws, exercising their powers unfairly for their own self interest and ulterior motives, with all the skill arising from years of experience and the fact that for decades the word “must” as used in the Act to impose a duty on council members has little, if any, relevance in this strata corporation, beyond a convenient guideline to mitigate personal risk, unless otherwise ordered by the court.
39. Most members of strata management in this complex are not ignorant; in fact, the scope of corruption shows how shrewd they are. They all have ready access to the Act in the strata records, and it is specifically referenced by name throughout the strata corporation’s bylaws. Moreover, it takes less than 2 minutes in an online search under either “Strata Property Act” or “BC laws” to find“Property” and “Limited Common Property and Exclusive Use of Common Property” in bold headings under the Act’s Table of Contents, which is very well organized. The governing law is written in easily understandable plain language and is available to anyone interested enough to read it, and those acting against me on council have had every reason to do so.
40. Those acting against me exploit all kinds of professional assistance, including legal advice from the strata corporation’s lawyers, all members in good standing of the Law Society, licensed to practice law in British Columbia, but hired and instructed by members of council who cannot be trusted. The result is deceptive misrepresentations that follow an entrenched method of operating based on key misnomers, by key people, with key motives, who make fraudulent misrepresentations, offload responsibility, feign ignorance, inject ambiguity, and rely on disclaimers, non-disclosure, and disparaging my credibility in a persistent pattern that exploits confusion, tampers with strata records, and cultivates costly unconscionable corruption and retaliation that bullies owners out of exercising their rights.
41. It is understandable how Councilor Hennan saw other members of council profit from taking common property without paying user fees and could not resist the temptation to do the same, but she did much more than that. The claims that Councillor Hennan made to the RCMP and her lack of remorse indicate that she intended to set a precedent and make her own unjust enrichment permanent, without regard to the Act or the cost to others, and she was supported by a team of others with similar values.
42. At the AGM President Lynda Baker sabotaged my proposal for a trellis planter enclosure and made misrepresentations of fact and law to the AGM that were so dumbfounding that I was practically speechless.
43. President Baker induced voters to believe that my proposal would trespass on my neighbour’s patio by saying with the voice of authority that she had confirmation from a lawyer that the sundeck adjacent to her strata lot was “definitely” owned by herself, switching around the facts, law, and guilt.
44. The sundeck adjacent to President Baker’s strata lot is actually owned more by me than by her, and it was built on the common property by the strata corporation, with money paid by me and not a dime from her. My proposal for a trellis planter enclosure would not infringe on the neighbour’s patio either, it would be located in the air space above the common property, much closer to my patio than to any one else’s. In fact, my neighbour is taking common property contrary to the Act, just like President Baker, Councillor Hennan, and Councillor Berg are, and the extra decking adjacent to my patio is owned more by me than by the neighbour who is using it at my expense and to my detriment, interfering with the privacy and enjoyment of others, and me in particular.
45. President Baker was supported by Councillor Berg, who told the voters that my proposals to move the trellis planters off my patio would move them closer to her windows in an “outrageous” invasion of her privacy, which only goes to show how sacrosanct privacy between the windows of the buildings is, and how much benefit others are gaining from the trellis planters taking up space on my patio for decades, since moved or not, they provide more privacy between the patios and windows than the cut down tree, and if moved would be little, if any, closer to Councillor Berg than enclosures built by the developer are to others, and much farther away from any direct contact.
46. Councillor Berg’s attack was particularly dumbfounding since the privacy that she enjoyed and focussed voters on would not exist without the trellis planters provided exclusively at my expense, and since she used one of the strata corporation’s sundecks to store huge unsightly tarps that continually assaulted the view from my living room, dining room, kitchen and patio for more years than I can remember, persistently causing a long-prolonged nuisance in violation of the bylaws, contrary to the best interests of anyone but herself.
47. Worse, contrary to multiple votes Councillor Berg diverted surplus funds from a special levy for building envelope repairs paid in trust on the understanding that the money would be used to repair the buildings shown on the strata plan with the surplus to be promptly refunded to the owners, and she used it to pay for luxuries for the exclusive benefit of a privileged minority, such as herself especially, contrary to direction from the owners that the strata would remove any deck that was not valued enough by the owner taking exclusive use of it to pay user fees covering the extra expenses attributable to its existence.
48. Councillor Berg knew better than anyone that I had more than paid for the full cost of any and all of my proposals without receiving the benefit because she is the one who made the motion to spend my money demolishing and reconstructing rotting decks for her own unjust enrichment, and she knew or ought to have known that if my share of the approximate half million dollar special levy surplus was refunded to me, as it was supposed to have been, that my $8,000 or so would have more than covered the cost of any kind of trellis planter enclosure ever proposed with thousands of dollars left over.
49. When a crime like that is committed under the auspices of a strata council, I don’t know the name for it, other than theft, but Councillor Berg not only used my money to demolish a rotten poorly built sundeck and build a big expensive new one for her own exclusive benefit at my expense, but she ignored her duty to enforce the bylaws and remedy the ongoing nuisance caused by removal of the tree and totally bypassed my proposals for a small remedial enclosure, which I had been making for decades. The shock and trauma was unspeakable.
50. Councilor Title does not benefit from any of the decking added to the common property, nor is she deprived by it, as I am. She has acted with hostility toward me for more than 10 years, ever since I expressed apprehensions of misconduct and geotechnical concerns attributable to a covert scheme that yielded unobstructed views for a minority, including herself, out of destruction of millions of dollars worth of trees and landscaping that impoverished the strata corporation. Half the owners fled under distress sale conditions that the strata lawyer described as “horrific” while the balance of the special levy surplus was withheld for 5 years and Councillor Title spent all that was left on a heartbreaking display of incompetent amateur landscape design that is unsightly, wasteful, dangerous, costly, and embarrassing. Councillor Title is responsible for destroying and denying strata records, and attacks me verbally and psychologically, cutting down trees, wilfully spoiling my enjoyment.
51. I’m talking about death by a thousand cuts when I say that Councillor Title repeatedly swore at me on the street, and about 2 weeks before calling the police, she yelled at me accusing me of scaring her cat when I delivered her newspaper the same way that I deliver all newspapers, repeatedly calling me an asshole. About 6 months before that she sabotaged my proposal for a trellis planter enclosure by mixing it up with extra “decks” when she issued the AGM agenda, and she personally made the motion for special Resolution #1 supporting Councillor Hennan’s interests and refused to second mine to allow for a vote on an appropriate amendment; about 9 months before that she had an important tree outside of my living room window cut down contrary to s. 71 of the Act, knowing full well that it was healthy and important to not just to my enjoyment and property value, but to my sense of privacy, security, and stability on a slope with a history of sinking. In steady violation of s. 71 and bylaw 4 she persistently refused to reinstate the trees, ground cover, and gardening adjacent to Unit 409, creating a dark oppressive jungle to my north, leaving weeds, pest infestations, and bare, derelict ground to my south, embarrassing my entrance for over a decade, tyrannically replacing the work of a professional landscape architect that brought us pride and joy with a haphazard patchwork of auction scraps and wasteful transplants that bring dangerously blocked views of traffic to the strata corporation and its visitors, and heartbreaking sorrow and frustration to me.
52. Councillor Title retaliated against me by cutting down an important tree, made false accusations against me to the RCMP, claimed she didn’t know who I was when I told the police about her cat accusation, and acting contrary to 4.1 of the bylaws, she breached her duty to remedy decades of nuisance and created further nuisance by destroying landscape architecture, removing trees, trashing strata records, and making false accusations against me to the police. Just as motions were never made to spend special levy funds to replace rotten decks and destroy millions of dollars worth of landscape architecture, motions were never made to designate limited common property for the benefit of a minority who take more than their share at the expense of others, and this is not the first time that key words and material minutes have been tampered with by those with ulterior motives.
53. When Councillor Title said to me, “why don’t you just move” it was consistent with the ongoing campaign to drive me out since I began expressing alarm about noticeable destruction of trees and landscaping beginning in about 2003. Councillor Title acted hand in glove with former strata president Al Macleod to exclude me and then eliminate the landscaping committee, withholding strata records as hundreds of mature trees were cut down resulting in millions of dollars of damage to create panoramic views without the 3/4 vote of approval required under s. 71, devastating the landscaping and leaving a multi-million dollar piece of real estate on a high profile street corner looking like a derelict war zone for over 5 years as owners sold in droves, and tree roots decomposed, buildings sank, pavement cracked, and underground pipes started breaking all over the complex and have yet to stop, while I have been attacked, cursed, and disparaged in meetings, minutes, letters, and police records. Disparaging my reputation and credibility and exhausting me with deceptive misrepresentations is an essential part of a corrupt campaign of power and control, and they intentionally inflicted emotional distress with unspeakable conduct until I was so traumatized that I could no longer function normally enough to earn a living.
54. The strata is responsible for nuisance and damage that is unique to Unit 409 and not shared by any other unit in the complex. Contrary to council’s duty to enforce the bylaws, it has for decades failed to respond to a wide variety of proposed remedies, ranging all the way from reinstating material trees, to reinstating proportional equity, and everything in between; including proposals that would have cost the strata nothing and offloaded the entire expense of the trellis planters and supporting platform onto me, and contrary to its duty under the Act to insure and repair the building it has failed to complete water damage repairs that it started in 2003, despite multiple engineering reports, leaving us to live in Unit 409 with water stained paint, warped doors, cracked walls, and sinking ceiling and flooring substrates.
55. Deceptive obfuscation, ludicrous misrepresentations, disparaging personal attacks, and pretexts of ignorance or innocent mistake are hallmarks of the rogues at the heart of corruption in this strata. They routinely rely on deliberately manufactured confusion, malicious defamation, and pretexts of innocent mistake to access insurance protection and escape responsibility for persistent misconduct attributable to ulterior motives and unjust enrichment. This is not funny. As evidenced by the RCMP’s actions against me, it cultivates an irrational environment where corruption is normalized and credibility and presumptions of guilt or innocence between the vulnerable and the governing powers holds about as much logic as witch trials.
56. The history goes on endlessly and ranges from fraudulent reports and indecipherable minutes that nobody is prepared to take personal responsibility for to Councillor Title demanding that Councillor Hennan call the RCMP and make accusations against me contrary to the Act and Jolanta Teszka telling the police that I was on my neighbour’s limited common property without permission and submitting as evidence AGM minutes without Appendix A.
57. I lived in peace and enjoyment for 40 years in apartments, houses, and another townhouse before I moved here, but this home is uniquely suited to my needs. I can’t replace it, or match its location, I don’t want to move, I can’t afford to lose the $20,000 that it would cost, and I care about the security which hinges on law and order and the corruption that flourishes without it, but the trauma of oppression in strata governance has rendered me unable to marshall evidence within the time frames required to proceed with litigation and induced me to file a notice of withdrawal to cut my losses.
58. I can’t stop the team of rogues in strata management from continually ignoring the Act, blatantly taking more than their proportionate share, damaging common property, wrecking havoc on other people’s lives, or committing public mischief. My best efforts have been exhausted, I can’t stop them at the ballot box, with the police, or in court, and they have never shown any shame, regret, or sign of mending their ways, the corruption only becomes more entrenched and the oppression just escalates.
59. This has got to stop. Violating the Act or unit entitlement formulas for sharing property is irrational and not in the interests of the strata corporation. Stigma has embarrassed the reputation of strata corporations and eroded property values as scandalous practices in strata governance and the strata agency industry have become increasingly wide spread and entrenched. The value of the land in this strata complex is nearly 3 times more than the value of the buildings, and from a mathematical perspective my unit’s proportionate share is about the same size as a lot for a single detached house. However, between today and 1971 when I bought my first single detached house and 1984 when I bought my first townhouse the percentage gap in prices between single detached homes and residential strata units located on similar sized pieces of land has been widening at a rate that reflects apprehensions of unfairness and unbridled mischief.
60. Prospective buyers of financial means tend to look elsewhere when ordinary due diligence exposes deceptive unenforceable bylaws, indecipherable minutes, non-disclosure of correspondence, and landscape design characterized by dangerously blocked sight lines, bare earth, rampant weeds, diseased plants, and front entrances that have been derelict for over a decade while systematic destruction of trees and an unmistakable downgrade in landscaping and curb appeal is visible to traffic despite the installation of a big stockade fence that hides much of the damage from the street.
61. The Act at s. 32 says that a council member who has a direct or indirect interest in a matter that materially conflicts with that member's duty as a council member must fully and promptly disclose to the council the nature and extent of the interest, abstain from voting on the matter, and leave the council meeting while the matter is discussed, unless asked by council to be present to provide information, and while the council votes on the matter.
62. The strata corporation’s minutes show that members of council benefiting from tree cutting or extra decks do not recluse themselves under s. 32 of the Act from voting on conflicts of interest or remedies for attributable nuisance. To the contrary, they make and second conflict of interest motions, and many of the most scandalous decisions are not disclosed. They are made anonymously in silence, hidden behind the scenes, without a vote, minutes, or any record of a meeting, contrary to Bylaw 21.3, and material strata records are persistently inaccessible, contrary to s. 35 of the Act.
63. The Act at s. 35 says that the strata corporation must prepare and retain minutes including the results of any votes; a list of owners with their unit entitlements; books of account showing money received and spent and the reason for the receipt or expenditure; and it must retain the registered strata plan as obtained from the land title office; the Act and the regulations; the bylaws and rules; resolutions that deal with changes to common property, including the designation of limited common property; any legal opinions obtained by the strata corporation; correspondence sent or received by the strata corporation and council, any depreciation reports obtained by the strata corporation under section 94; and any reports obtained by the strata corporation respecting repair or maintenance of major items in the strata corporation, including engineers' reports, and risk management reports.
64. Councillors Hennan and Title both had access to and admitted in minutes to having reviewed the strata records, which include material correspondence, the registered strata plan, the Act, strata bylaws, and all that a reasonable person would need to quickly and easily confirm limited common property designations, prescribed terms for patios and balconies, unit entitlements, and formulas for proportionate sharing of property and expenses.
65. Councilor Title held the office of secretary and was responsible for the strata records, including reams of correspondence that I sent to council for deliberation, debate, and decision making votes on the relevant issues. She was responsible for non-disclosure of material facts and decisions, indecipherable minutes, and persistently denying me access to requested strata records contrary to the Act. She also had years of experience in direct and indirect management of the common property and significant knowledge and control of material facts and deceptive misrepresentations.
66. The Act at s. 66 says that
66 An owner owns the common property and common assets of the strata corporation as a tenant in common in a share equal to the unit entitlement of the owner's strata lot divided by the total unit entitlement of all the strata lots.
67. The words in a share equal to the unit entitlement corresponds to the statutory formula for sharing common expenses. Bylaws or agreements for offloading responsibility for exterior painting are not only contrary to the Act and significantly unfair to 3-bedroom units with strata plan patios, they are unenforceable against every single member who was on the strata council at the material time, all of whom have 2-bedroom units with balconies, and half of whom are unlawfully taking for themselves exclusive use of extra decks on common property adjacent to those units and continually taking more than their share at the expense of others, deliberately avoiding paying user fees.
68. The only enforceable provision for sharing extra expenses attributable to extra decking and exterior painting is the imposition of user fees for exclusive use of common property, and the deceptive misrepresentations made to the RCMP of the new sundeck as Councilor Hennan’s limited common property in a share away out of proportion to her unit entitlement ownership is the most scandalous and extreme form of unjust enrichment attempted to date.
69. The Act at s. 71 says
71 Subject to the regulations, the strata corporation must not make a significant change in the use or appearance of common property or land that is a common asset unless (a) the change is approved by a resolution passed by a 3/4 vote at an annual or special general meeting, or (b) there are reasonable grounds to believe that immediate change is necessary to ensure safety or prevent significant loss or damage.
70. Until the AGM in 2014 when a remedial decking proposal from me was finally put on the agenda, after decades of oppressive delay, extra decking added to the common property where no buildings are on the strata plan and systemic destruction of hundreds of mature trees was never considered to be a significant change in the use and appearance of the common property by members of council who were managing the common property for their own unjust enrichment without a 75% vote, and refusing to pay user fees to reimburse trust funds raided from the building envelope and offset an astronomical near half million dollars in extra expenses attributable to extra decks and panoramic views, or the unknown cost of reinstating trees and greenery planted by the developer’s landscape architect, paid for by the original owners, and by me more than anyone else, which are required, by statute and bylaw, to be maintained by the strata.
71. The Act at s. 73 says that common property may be designated as limited common property by a designation on the strata plan when it is deposited in the land title office, or by a resolution passed at an annual or special general meeting under section 74.
72. I showed the RCMP the designations for limited common property on the strata plan and Councilor Hennan’s balcony on the south side of the building in particular and told him that the sundeck was not designated as limited common property.
73. The Act at s. 74 says that
(1) Common property may be designated as limited common property by a resolution passed by a 3/4 vote at an annual or special general meeting. (2) A resolution passed under subsection (1) must be filed in the land title office with a sketch plan that (a) satisfies the registrar, (b) defines the areas of limited common property, and (c) specifies each strata lot whose owners are entitled to the exclusive use of the limited common property. (3) A resolution passed under subsection (1) does not have effect until it is filed in the land title office. (4) The designation of limited common property by a resolution under this section does not require an amendment to the strata plan.
74. The registered common property record in the Land Title Office confirms that none of the above ever took place. It is now November 25, 2015, another AGM has come and gone, and anyone interested could have easily confirmed the status by normal caveat emptor due diligence well before I sat on the sundeck reading on September 27, 2014, nearly 6 months after the AGM on April 8, 2014. As far as the complainant, Councilor Hennan, the strata secretary, Councilor Title, and the strata agent, Jolanta Teszka, are concerned, the preponderance of evidence shows that they knew all along, or ought to have known and were negligent beyond belief in making false representations to the police, ignoring the law, and acting unfairly, deceptively, and contrary to the best interests of the strata corporation right to this day.
75. The Act at s. 76 says that
76 (1) Subject to section 71, the strata corporation may give an owner or tenant permission to exclusively use, or a special privilege in relation to, common assets or common property that is not designated as limited common property. (2) A permission or privilege under subsection (1) may be given for a period of not more than one year, and may be made subject to conditions. (3) The strata corporation may renew the permission or privilege and on renewal may change the period or conditions. (4) The permission or privilege given under subsection (1) may be cancelled by the strata corporation giving the owner or tenant reasonable notice of the cancellation.
76. Special privileges that are subject to user fees and may be withdrawn are hard to sell to those seeking unjust enrichment, so members of council have for decades granted themselves never ending special privileges contrary to the Act, made deceptive misrepresentations, and planted seeds of confusion to cultivate a culture where those who pay less can get more than their share for free, at the expense of others, forever; but the owners of this strata complex have never once seen fit to grant exclusive use of common property to anyone, and Councillor Hennan’s pretense that 75% granted her exclusive use, permanently, as a most generous gift at the expense of those who pay more and get less, is absurd.
77. The Act at s. 110 says that
A strata corporation must not impose user fees for the use of common property or common assets by owners, tenants or occupants, or their visitors, other than as set out in the regulations.
78. User fees are the legislature’s way to harmonize best use, unit entitlement, common expenses, and responsibility, but the complainants persistently ignore repeated requests to make a rule to impose such fees, and those decisions have been excluded from the minutes, as have the words “user fees,” contrary to the reporting required under the Act.
79. The Act at s. 134 says that the strata corporation may, for a reasonable length of time, deny an owner the use of a recreational facility that is common property or a common asset if the owner has contravened a bylaw or rule relating to the recreational facility.
80. The sundeck is common property, I did not contravene a bylaw or rule relating to the sundeck, a limited common property designation would not be a reasonable time, it would be permanent denial, and Councilors Hennan and Title had no authority to deny my rights or make misrepresentations inducing the police to deny me access as they did.
81. The Act at s. 135 says that the strata corporation must not deny an owner the use of a recreational facility, unless the strata has received a complaint, given the owner the particulars in writing, and a reasonable opportunity to answer, including a hearing if requested, and the strata corporation must, as soon as feasible, give notice in writing of a decision to the owner.
82. The authority to deny an owner access to a sundeck rests with the strata council, not the RCMP, and is governed under the Act.
83. Contrary to the Act, the strata did not give me particulars in writing of Councillor Hennan’s complaint, in fact I am not even sure that it was her complaint, it seemed more like Councillor Title’s, worse, the strata never replied or gave me notice of its decision, and I didn’t find out the particulars until I received partial disclosure from the RCMP over a year later.
84. The RCMP’s denial of my rights in disregard of the law was a traumatic shock, as was the delay of more than a year, and living under such conditions has felt like walking through a mine field blindfolded. I have had to make an extraordinary effort to prove to this court that I am not guilty, as the contrast in the preponderance of evidence that I presented compared to the absence of evidence presented by those acting against me is so stark, as is the contrast between a presumption of innocence and a charge of trespass with the threat of worse if I ever dared to exercise my rights during the next year, or more, and the contrast between proof on a balance of probabilities based on evidence, and proof beyond a reasonable doubt based on I don’t know what since the RCMP bullied and intimidated me out of my rights in violation of the law.
85. The Strata Property Regulation at s. 6.9 says that for the purposes of s. 110 of the Act user fees may be imposed for the use of common property or common assets if the amount of the fee is reasonable and set out in a bylaw or rule ratified under section 125 (6) of the Act.
86. Members of council have quashed user fee proposals, diverted special levy funds, and sabotaged statutory formulas for sharing common property and expenses in proportion to unit entitlement for decades, impoverishing the strata corporation and its members with costly decks and views for their own unjust enrichment, and retaliate against me for complaining about corruption and unfair treatment.
87. The Strata Property Regulation requires that every strata plan tendered for deposit in a land title office must show the dimensions of the boundaries of the limited common property (s. 14.4(1)(c)), and dimensioned lines, exclusive of enlargements, must be true to scale (s. 14.4(1)(n)).
88. Unit 408's balcony is shown on the strata plan and designated as limited common property for Councillor Hennan’s exclusive use in dimensions of 7.2 m2. The dimensions and boundaries are there for anyone who is interested to see, and I specifically pointed them out to the RCMP.
89. The ulterior motives are obvious. The recreational sundeck is more than twice the size of Councilor Hennan’s balcony, the sundeck and her balcony together are over twice the size of my patio, she is perpetrating significant unfairness contrary to nuisance bylaws and her duties on council and taking more than twice her share of the common property for her own exclusive use contrary to the Act and proportionate unit entitlement, while paying about 30% less in strata fees and taxes and not a dime in user fees.
90. Trespass Act [RSBC 1996] CHAPTER 462 at ss. 4 and 4.1.
91. The RCMP charged me with trespass on enclosed land under the Trespass Act, s. 4 (3) disregarding the words:“subject to section 4.1" (statutory authority and colour of right being the key point) a person who has been directed by “an authorized person” (who would be restricted under the Act) to stop engaging in an activity on “the premises” (assumably, the sundeck) “commits an offence” (assuming that the property was not specifically governed under the Strata Property Act and owned more by me than those acting against me) if the person “resumes the activity (exercising legitimate rights, reading a book, or staging a sit-down protest) on or in the premises.”
92. I did not trespass. It is the strata who is infringing on my patio in covert substitution for a tree on the common property, without paying me rent, ignoring my protests, causing years of unfair nuisance, shirking bylaw enforcement, and making deceiving misrepresentations, all for the benefit of those taking common property for their own exclusive use, without permission or paying user fees.
93. My use of the sundeck compared to how others are using my patio is as follows:
a. The sundeck is common property, and I have statutory authority to make use it accordingly. My patio is limited common property, so nobody else has any authority to make use of it, directly, or indirectly.
b. The sundeck is a recreational facility that nobody had the right to deny me access to. The strata has a duty to enforce the bylaws that prohibit damage to common property and nuisance, and I have the right to complain damage and nuisance from the strata infringing on my patio and I have been doing so for decades to no avail.
94. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights may have no effect in Canada, but it can be relied on as a guide to show that the charge of trespass attacked my honour and reputation, interfered with my privacy, denied me equal protection before the law without discrimination, made a mockery out of “presumed innocent” until proved guilty, violated the law instead of remedying unlawful conduct, subjected me to over a year of psychological torture and degrading delay that drained the life out of me, and combined with the threat of “worse” bullied me out of exercising my rights for 14 months.
95. Nobody had any right to deny me access to the sundeck. Authority to grant permission for exclusive use of common property is restricted under the Strata Property Act to prescribed periods (s. 76); it is not automatic, it must be for less than a year, it must be recorded in the minutes (s. 35), it has never been granted to anyone in this complex, and denying an owner access is statutorily restricted (s. 134.)
96. Councillor Hennan refused to share, caused loss to me and granted herself exclusive use of the sundeck when she phoned the RCMP contrary to the Act, the bylaws, and the Appendix A agreement that she signed. For over a year she has made no move to mitigate the damage from disparaging me with false accusations, denying my rights, and sickening me beyond belief with trauma that is largely unspeakable. If she was as interested in her doing duty to remedy decades of nuisance arising out of extra decking as she proved to be in worsening it, the minutes would show it.
97. I acted lawfully in accordance with the Strata Property Act and strata bylaws and those acting against me did not. Even if use of the sundeck was not governed under the Strata Property Act, to the best of my understanding, I did not contravene the Trespass Act, nor commit an offence under the Offence Act. To the contrary, I gave council written notice of my intention to use a sundeck, I was the only one to do so, I was prepared to share the space, I tried my best to avoid unfairness or surprise, and during decades of corruption and oppression I obeyed the law and did everything in my power to obtain reasonable remedies for significant unfairness.
98. The strata records provide evidence that contrary to strata bylaw 4.1 the management team not only sabotaged my proposals to remedy years of nuisance and oppression, they worsened it with fraudulent misrepresentations, disparaging accusations, and mob attack. They persistently refuse to admit the truth, consider the law, or talk to me over tea where they can’t gang up on me.
99. The preponderance of evidence indicates that the management team acted with ulterior motives contrary to unit entitlement formulas and due diligence, deceptively misrepresenting definitions (s. 1), in bad faith (s. 64), contrary to open government (s. 35), ownership of property (s. 66), limited common property designations (ss. 73 and 74), and the best interests of the strata corporation, peace, order, and good government.
100. Appendix A to special Resolution #1 was set out in the agenda and notice for the April 8, 2014 AGM, but when Councilor Title circulated the minutes to the owners and Jolanta Teszka delivered them to the RCMP, Appendix A was severed from the minutes.
101. This is consistent with an overall pattern and method of operating with ulterior motives supporting unfairness and deception contrary to the best interests of the strata corporation. Councilor Hennan violated the conditions set out in Appendix A when she denied other owners access to the sundeck and made false accusations against me, and the management team’s fraudulent claims to the RCMP of a designation of limited common property are contradictory to the provisions of the prescribed form agreement in Appendix A.
102. The information in Appendix A to the resolution includes:
a. a prescribed form agreement that Councillor Hennan was required to sign confirming that approval of the resolution was subject to her agreement to “save harmless” other owners from any loss or liability and to “restore the area to its original condition” if the installation was not done in a professional manner, and to acknowledge that the installation “does not affect the unit entitlement” as registered in the Land Title Office.
b. a March 2014 drawing of Councilor Hennan’s proposal to build a deck measuring 10 feet 1 inch by 16 feet 1/4 inch (equivalent to 15 m2) called Plan B. [calculation errors and omissions excepted; the conversions to metric are my best efforts, offered to provide convenient comparison to the strata plan]
c. a March 3, 2014, drawing of my proposal for a 36"x10' platform (equivalent to 2.78 m2) called Proposal A.
103. In regard to the Appendix A agreement, a limited common property designation would make it impossible to save harmless other owners because user fees are not applicable under the Act for use of limited common property and bylaws offloading the strata corporation’s statutory responsibility to repair and maintain common property are unenforceable, and Councilor Hennan could not possibly restore the area to its original condition because a limited common property designation would be effectively irrevocable, requiring a 3/4 vote by owners.
104. In regard to Councillor Hennan’s Appendix A proposals, she invoked confusion contrary to the best interests of the strata by deceptively presenting as Plan A a drawing with smaller dimensions than those labelled Plan B, and the members did not consider the impact on present and future owners, privacy, or unfair precedent attributable to Plan B, but Councillor Hennan built Plan B, instead of Plan A, and this is consistent with an overall pattern and method of operating with ulterior motives.
105. In further regard to Appendix A, it is obvious that my proposal was not the same as the others. My proposal was modest and respectful of proportionate unit entitlements, and the others were not. My proposal was for no more than necessary to mitigate loss and reinstate full use of my patio for my own exclusive benefit, and the others were for extravagant luxuries in addition to full enjoyment of their own balconies. I set out alternate proposals A and B being contingent on whether the strata reinstated the swing-in style door as I was making proposals to remedy nuisance that had gone on contrary to the bylaws for decades, and the other proposals were from owners who are comparatively new.
106. My Proposal A was for no more than needed to accommodate trellis planters that are obstructing the dining space on my patio in place of the tree removed from the common property; Proposal B for a 66" x 10' extension (equivalent to 5.16 m2) was no more than the extra amount needed in case the strata did not reinstate the original swing-in style patio door to remedy the nuisance it created by installing a swing-out modification that wastes usable patio space on the limited common property of 3-bedroom units and uniquely destroyed the function of Unit 409's narrow patio.
107. Deceptive misrepresentations of law made to the meeting by the president using a voice of authority misled voters and induced a fear of trespass which resulted in only one hand (mine) being raised in favour of the part of my proposal that was presented for a vote.
108. Page 2 of the AGM Minutes Strata Plan NW2671 April 8, 2014, includes:
a. the preamble to Resolution #1 citing the Strata Property Act s. 71(a) as
i. WHEREAS pursuant to s. 71(a) of Strata Property Act, S.B.C. 1998, c. 43 (the “Act”) a strata corporation must not make a significant change in the use or appearance of common property unless the change is approved by a resolution passed by a 3/4 vote at an annual or special general meeting;
b. the material reference to the missing “Appendix A;”
c. insidiously deceptive misrepresentation of the strata plan patio belonging to Unit 409 as a “deck” when patios and balconies are part of the strata plan and designated as “limited common property” in proportion to “unit entitlement” and “decks” are not;
d. my proposal for a remedial extension to reinstate the original function of my strata plan patio to mitigate loss and unfairness mixed up with contrasting proposals by owners with strata plan balconies to build recreational sundecks as added luxuries;
e. proposals that are substantially different in purpose, need, history, and funding presented as if they were the same, with no funding provision for the remedial proposals that I made and paid for over a decade ago with special levy funds; and
f. evidence of pre-meditated intention for mischief by the confusing injection of the words “beyond their designated limited common property,” as follows:
(1) “BE IT RESOLVED by a 3/4 vote of THE OWNERS, STRATA PLAN NW2671 (the “Strata Corporation”) that the following owners are permitted to extend their decks and to construct a new deck, where there is no deck, beyond their designated limited common property onto common property as described in the accompanying documents attached as Appendix A
a.Gary Holme Unit 502
b.Audrey Dumaresq Unit 504
c.Barbara Hennan Unit 408
d. Dianne Bond Unit 409"
109. The definition of “Absurdity” is anything which is so irrational, unnatural, or inconvenient that it cannot be supposed to have been within the intention of men of ordinary intelligence and discretion. Obviously and flatly opposed to the manifest truth; inconsistent with the plain dictates of common sense; logically contradictory; nonsensical; ridiculous.
110. To say that the new sundeck is limited common property is absurd. A motion to designate limited common property under s. 74 was not presented for a vote as it would be contrary to Appendix A and unnatural, irrational, and inconsistent with the plain dictates of common sense for 75% to sacrifice their common property rights and pay higher strata fees in perpetuity to subsidize a greedy minority taking twice their proportionate share for their own exclusive use and unjust enrichment without paying user fees.
111. The definition of “Contra proferentem”. Used in connection with the construction of written documents to the effect that the an ambiguous provision is construed most strongly against the person who selected the language.
112. Georgia Title is the strata secretary. She made the s. 71 resolution at the AGM, and the responsibility for drafting the agenda and AGM resolutions fell to her and members of the strata council, such as the complainant, Marnie Hennan, alias, “Barbara Hennan Unit 408", but the primary responsibility for selecting the language goes to the secretary, Councillor Title, the strata president, Lynda Baker, or the strata manager, Jolanta Teszka.
113. The interpretation doctrine of “Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius” means that the expression of one thing is the exclusion of the other and supports the fact that a limited common property resolution under s. 74 was excluded from the s. 71 resolution. In addition, the notice, agenda, motion, and minutes of the meeting all reference s. 71 only.
114. Section 74 was not mentioned for good reason; nobody could reasonably expect voters to knowingly give up their own rights to proportionate benefits of common property to those who pay less strata fees and take more than their share at the expense of others.
115. The definition of “Meeting of minds”. ...is not based on secret purpose or intention on the part of one of the parties, stored away in his mind and not brought to the attention of the other party, but must be based on purpose and intention which has been made known or which from all the circumstance should be known.
116. If members of council intended to change common property to limited common property it was not disclosed to the membership, the preamble to the resolution citing a significant change in the use of common property by the strata corporation under s. 71 was misleading, and they were acting with ulterior motives contrary to the best interests of owners, less than third of which benefit from sundecks.
117. The strata management team acting against me knew that they acted unlawfully, or a person of full capacity with similar responsibility who exercised reasonable care, diligence, and skill ought to know. They had ready access to the Strata Property Act, which is specified throughout the strata bylaws, with the most relavent parts repeatedly referenced in correspondence which they persistently failed to acknowledge receipt of. They feign ignorance with willful blindness and peristently avoid deliberation or voting on the material content of my correspondence and disclosure of the decisions to the members. They also had the benefit of experience and the significant advantage of legal advice from lawyers hired and retained at their pleasure and instructed to further their agenda.
118. Guilty minds, ulterior motives, and lack of credibility and scruples are further evidenced in gibberish from the strata manager, Jolanta Teszka, in her letter to the police (the RCMP did not disclose the date of the letter) saying,
“Attached please find the AGM minutes from April 8, 2014 approving by 3/4 vote addition of and extending the Limited Common Property, the deck, onto common property for unit 408.”
119. This tortured jumble of language comes from a highly experienced, university educated, licenced strata agent hired by and retained those acting against me, and it is a hallmark of the deceptively confusing doubletalk persistently surrounding unlawful conduct, extra decking, and the moral hazards of strata agency, where this client represents revenue of more than $20,000 a year at the pleasure of members of council who pursue their own interests contrary to the Act.
120. The Unit Entitlement Proposed Strata Fees Jan 1/14 to Dec 31/14 is evidence of high stakes relative to demographics and ulterior motives for misrepresentation, where I pay about 30% more every month (nearly a $1,000 a year more than any council member) and have for more than 20 years longer than Councillor Hennan, which is about $100,000 more in strata fees since 1988.
121. In addition, I have paid approximately $100,000 in special levies, while Councillor Hennan paid nothing. I own 30% more of the property than any council member, while Councillors Hennan and Title create a prohibited nuisance and unlawfully deprive me of my rights.
122. The 2015 Property Assessment Notice shows the assessed value for my share of the land (common property) is nearly three times more than the building (my strata lot.)
123. This is further evidence of the high stakes at play by those who take twice their share at my expense, leaving me sickened and impoverished, as they are doubly enriched, giving me further legitimate reason to occupy the sundeck in protest against ongoing exploitation and oppression.
124. My drawing dated 1988 to 2013 depicts significant unfairness and legitimate reason for me to protest against corruption, oppression, and public mischief, including:
a. screening trees on the common property, replaced under protest by trellis planters on my patio
b. lost landscaping and safety buffer, which council is shirking its duty to maintain
c. offensive space wasting modification of patio door, from a swing-in style to a swing-out style
d. loss of outdoor dining space and exclusive use of my patio, for the benefit of neighbours
e. nuisance that the strata is responsible for, breaching bylaws council has a duty to enforce
f. special levy money paid in trust for building envelope repairs, diverted to views and decking
g. persistent nuisance attributable to exclusive use of common property contrary to the Act, to my detriment, for 25 years, or about 9,131 days and counting
125. Photos of views, with and without trees and tarps evidence privacy issues and prohibited nuisance under the strata bylaws. More photos are online at sunridgecoquitlam.blogspot.com.
126. Photos of my patio obstructed with trellis planters and posts that the strata installed taking space away from me contrary to the Act and the strata’s nuisance bylaw 4.1.
127. Photo of my chair on the new sundeck on common property north of Unit 408, which is on the opposite side of the building from Councilor Hennan’s balcony on limited common property on the south side of the unit as shown on the strata plan.
128. My letters to the strata, dated August 27 and 28, 2014 reporting on Councillor Title accusing me of scaring her cat and calling me an “asshole,” and my September 29th follow-up to her police action against me on September 27, 2014.
129. I also gave advance notice to council of my intention to use a sundeck, repeatedly, and wrote reams of related correspondence that I cannot retrieve at this point as my copies are buried in a sickening mess of toxic evidence that overpowers me with aversion that is currently insurmountable.
130. Affidavit of Jolanta Teszka sworn September 29, 2015 includes bias, hearsay, speculation, exaggeration, inflammatory language, incompetent legal advice, personal opinion, and fraudulent misrepresentations filed in Supreme Court in Bond v. Strata Plan NW2671 et al, currently withdrawn.
131. Affidavit of Dianne Bond sworn October 8, 2015 responds to the affidavit of Jolanta Teszka and details further particulars of the lack of credibility of those acting against me, the toxic impact that prolonged and repeated trauma has on my health, and the time that I need to overcome an overwhelming sense of aversion that severely impedes my ability to marshall evidence for use in court mixed with an obsessive compulsive determination to defend myself that results in incoherent or prolix ranting and loss of control.
132. Notice of Withdrawal, filed in BC Supreme Court No. S165066 on October 13, 2015, this was induced by the practical need to face reality, cut my losses, and bear the cost consequences of a hierarchy of credibility that favours and forgives those in power and oppresses the persecuted, suppressing the remedy and advancing the mischief with prejudicial legal fiction which is very onerous, if not impossible, to defend against, as evidenced by the unbridled actions of the RCMP and senior officers of the strata corporation.
133. Particulars include disparaging, deceptive, prejudicial police and court records created by authorities switching key terms, with the RCMP switching material terms for common property “decks” with limited common property “balconies” followed by the court switching a past tense event with a present tense opposite and calling it “fundamental” to denying my application for a stay of proceedings and “okay.” It is not okay; the records are false and clinch my inability to rely on law enforcement or legal protection without discrimination.
134. Excerpts from the RCMP’s partial disclosure of police records:
a. summarized with a 33-page request for corrections of the portions of personal information that were released to me in response to my Privacy Act request
b. pages 4-7 of a letter to me dated November 9, 2015, from RCMP Superintendent Sean Maloney stating:
p. 4, Constable Anselmo said in a statement that it made sense to him that the
“balcony” was “limited common property” because the “layout of the property was one balcony per unit, and someone should not just go on the property if someone doesn’t want you there.” “It was very clear to him whose property was whose... He did not want to give you a ticket... You left him no choice but to give you the ticket”
p.5, Ms. Teszka “stated that you put your chair on your neighbour’s limited common property and you had no permission to be there” ...“Ms. Teszka is a Strata Property Manager licensed in the Province of British Columbia. She obtained her Real Estate licence in 1990 and her Strata Manager’s licence in 2011. I consider her opinion on this matter to have significant weight because of her profession and experience in dealing with strata properties.”
p. 7, “the colour of right is a subjective clause usually raised at court and determined by a judge... Police officers are not required or expected to be experts in the interpretation of law... It should be noted that a violation ticket contains an allegation only, not a proven offence...” alleged violators “have an opportunity to dispute the ticket and have their argument(s) heard by the court.”
135. The persistence with which Constable Anselmo twisted key words, saying that the “balcony” was “limited common property” after I repeatedly pointed out the material distinction between Councillor Hennan’s balcony and the recreational sundeck is alarming, and his admission that he didn’t want to give me a ticket is contrary to what one would expect if he really thought that I was trespassing as charged and did not believe me when I specifically explained the registered records, statutory authority, and graphic pictures of corruption. Officers of the law are dismissing material evidence, giving the governing powers a presumption of innocence until proven guilty beyond any reasonable doubt and denying it to me in an unreasonably discriminatory manner.
136. Ms. Teszka cannot be trusted, to say the least. The facts and law both show that her statement is false, and the pollution of language in RCMP records is compelling evidence that she and the RCMP both knew it.
137. The moral dilemma inherent in agency relationships seems to compel Ms. Teszka to please the decision makers who pay her regardless of the best interest of the strata corporation, and strata records reflect a long history of indecipherable mishmashed doubletalk, routine violation of the Act, fraudulent denials, and reliance on insurance, disclaimers, confusion, and shrewd exploitation of ambiguity and facades of ignorance and innocent mistake as a guise.
138. Furthermore, in Said v. Meadow Ridge Classic Realty 2014 BCPC 0129 at paras. 36, 70, 79, and 131, this court found Ms.Teszka to be an unreliable witness responsible for breaches of obligations of such magnitude that they amounted to gross negligence, and her hostility and lack of credibility is further evidenced throughout her affidavit in Bond v. Strata Plan NW2671 et al sworn on September 29, 2015.
139. Whether intentional or not, the RCMP’s actions supported members of council acting with ulterior motives contrary to the Act.
140. The RCMP says that it should be noted that a violation ticket contains an allegation only... but its effect is a lot more than an allegation, the ticket effectively condoned public mischief and took a harsh toll on my health, reputation, and rights... and what “should be NOTED” is blatantly disregarded. What should be noted is the Act that governs strata property, the obvious evidence of adverse possession of land, unjust enrichment, deceptive misrepresentations, willful blindness, malice, and lack of remorse displayed by those ganging up on me with legal and financial advantages and years of knowledge and experience, and the enormous toll that preparation of an effective defence against false accusations under adverse conditions of personal disparagement, denial of rights and disregard of law by authorities takes on a person.
141. Having issued the ticket, instead of admitting an error, the RCMP acted to support it for over a year, and avoided interviewing me further in apparent reluctance to respond to the preponderance of contrary evidence, and ignored the fact that Appendix A” was severed from a resolution crafted in a manner that obscures, confuses, and deceptively switches material terms for patios and decks and treats a previously funded remedial proposal to mitigate loss as if it was the same as proposals for luxuries from others trying to take more that their share.
142. Members of strata management persistently fail to make a motion to remedy relentless nuisance, endless loss, and significant unfairness that is unique to me; instead they do the opposite and present the problem as being me instead of their own unlawful conduct and manufacture prejudicial police records that are false and deceptive and publish disparaging notices in the minutes of a “cease and desist” demand and“complaints filed with the RCMP” to stop the “harassment.”
143. Cease and desist means give up on complaining as the management team strategy hinges on non-disclosure of strata records as required by law and their focus is on creating the illusion of justification or innocent mistake to access and preserve insurance protection as they sabotage my credibility, bully me out of my rights, exhaust my protests, and persistently violate their statutory obligations and the best interests of the strata corporation, until unfairness and unjust enrichment is so destructive and normalized that it defies the plain dictates of common sense. The effect is crazy making.
144. In my experience complaints filed against me with the RCMP are harassment. I am the target. This exhausting incident is but one example of relentless harassment revolving around disparaging my credibility to bolster an overwhelming campaign of fraudulent misrepresentations by an unscrupulous gang with ulterior motives churning out mischief attributable to unjust enrichment, deliberate misconduct, and the quietly relentless abuse of power in this strata complex.
145. In addition to inherent statutory authority, my colour of right to sit on the sundeck arises out of strata management’s disregard of the Act, strata bylaws, and unfair profit to members of council depriving me of exclusive use and benefit of Unit 409's legitimately designated limited common property. I made all kinds of remedial proposals and even went so far as to offer to pay for a suitable platform to get the trellis planters out of my outdoor dining space, but members of strata management persisted with bogus delays, added increasing nuisance and expense, accused me of harassment, obstructed communication, made fraudulent misrepresentations, diverted special levy funds, installed obstructive posts on my patio without permission, made it impossible for me to take them down, and denied repeated requests for their removal.
SUMMARY
146. On September 27, 2014, I was reading a book on a recreational sundeck on common property that is not designated on the strata plan as limited for the exclusive use of anyone. Under the Strata Property Act nobody had the right to deny me access to it as they did. In contrast, I had good reason to stage a sit down protest against significant unfairness and corruption, and the RCMP intimidated me out of exercising my legitimate rights, harming my health and welfare without apology.
147. Members of the strata management team acted contrary to the Strata Property Act and strata bylaws, denied my rights, made deceptive misrepresentations, disparaging my reputation, creating a nuisance, and acting unfairly in their own interests with ulterior motives contrary to the best interests of the strata corporation, and involved the RCMP in a process that normalizes, and tends to legitimize, misconduct and disparage my reputation.
148. After decades of continual actions against me contrary to the Act and all the proposals I have made for remedies the toll taken has impaired my capacity to function to the point that I am no longer able to earn a living or marshal overwhelming evidence within the time frames required to proceed with litigation.
149. The evidence shows that experienced and knowledgeable members of the management team act deliberately to generate and persistently sustain significant unfairness contrary to the Act, stubbornly refuse to remedy resultant nuisance under strata bylaw #4.1, and continually set the stage to pretend that they do not know what they do is unlawful or what they say is false. But for that persistent misconduct, these proceedings would not exist, and I could relax and live in peace instead of relentless turmoil.
150. The police charged me with trespass, issued a violation ticket, and threatened me with worse if I returned to the sundeck on the sole basis that a strata agent and another member of council supported my neighbour’s allegations.
151. The RCMP avoided investigating graphic evidence of nuisance and oppression and serious charges of corruption in strata governance and disparaged my credibility and normal reactions to abnormal events with prejudicial allegations of mental illness in their police records. They unreasonably used misnomers for key terms which were clearly specified, persistently switching around “balcony” and “deck” after I repeatedly pointed out the material distinction; they continually disregarded registered strata records and the governing strata enactments that I relied on for protection and defence and instituted delay of over a year during a “final investigation” in which they accepted gibberish as material evidence which they neglected to share with me and continually failed to interview me for the other side of the story; in fact key evidence was not revealed to me until I obtained partial disclosure under the Privacy Act about a month ago.
152. The deceptive misrepresentations, false accusations, disregard of the law, traumatic denial of my rights, discrimination, intimidation, and delay of more than a year by law enforcement officials resisting reality under the Act knowing that I was correspondingly sickened betrayed my trust, prejudiced my reputation, damaged my security, and inflicted corresponding pain and suffering, making such punishment greater than the punishment that might have lawfully been imposed had I been guilty as charged and simply paid the fine.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
I am pray for this court to:
- make a declaration to exonerate me of the accusation that I was on my neighbour’s limited common property without permission and grant me under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protection and benefit of the law without discrimination;
- order that the charge and ticket be dismissed and the complainants pay me costs under s. 79 of the Offence Act in an amount determined by this court;
- remedy criminal mischief under the Criminal Code as this court deems fair and reasonable.
