409 – 1215 Lansdowne Drive
Coquitlam, BC V3E 2P2
October 22, 2014
Commissioner for
Public Complaints Against the RCMP
Bag Service 1722,
Station B
Ottawa, Ontario K1P
0B3
Via Fax: 604-501-4095,
Total pages: 2
Re: Coquitlam RCMP
File: 2014-29413; CPC File: 2014-2936
I am disputing a
provincial violation ticket issued for trespassing on a recreational sundeck on
my strata corporation’s common property which I am legally entitled to enjoy
and occupy.
As
instructed in a letter to me dated October 14, 2014 from Officer in Charge,
Superintendent C. Wilcott, advising that investigation of my complaint
concerning Constable Anselmo of the Coquitlam RCMP was terminated based on a
review of the operational police file, I request a review of the manner in
which this incident was handled.
Contrary to
Superintendant Wilcott’s allegation that upon his arrival Constable Anselmo was
advised by the property manager of anything at all, Constable Anselmo advised
me based on the word of my neighbours that I was trespassing on limited common
property that was obviously my neighbour’s and he was giving me a ticket for
trespassing, before he ever spoke to the property manager or looked at the
documentation that I provided in my defence.
When Constable
Anselmo requested that I not go back onto what he alleged to be my neighbour’s
property I told him that the property was more mine than my neighbour’s and I
would not agree not to go back as I was protesting against significantly unfair
strata governance. I told him that I actually intended to resume my demonstration
as soon as he left, which is when he told me that he was issuing a ticket for
trespassing. It was clear that Constable Anselmo did not want to consider my
evidence. He reacted unreasonably to me disputing his accusations and authority,
and he threatened me with “worse” police action if I resumed my occupation of
the property. As a result I did not carry on with my demonstration. Constable
Anselmo bullied me out of my statutory property rights and constitutional protest
rights, and I did not go back onto what Constable Anselmo alleged to be my
neighbour’s property as Superintendent Wilcott is claiming I did.
I advised
Constable Anselmo of the difference between limited common property and common
property in the Strata Property Act, it was not the other way around as
Superintendent Wilcott is claiming. Also contrary to the allegations of
Constable Anselmo and Superintendent Wilcott, limited common property is
clearly defined, and Constable Anselmo issued a ticket in unreasonable
disregard of material evidence. The documentation that I provided in my defence
was the registered strata plan showing what is designated as limited common
property for the relevant neighbour’s use, section 76 of the BC Strata Property
Act governing permission for exclusive use of the property that did not and
does not exist, and a graphic illustration of obvious unfairness which I told
Constable Anselmo that I was protesting against and seeking a remedy for in
Supreme Court proceedings (New Westminster Registry No. S165066). Furthermore,
with over 700,000 strata properties in BC, it is beyond belief that the RCMP cannot
understand the designation of limited common property shown on a registered strata
plan.
I understand that
the discretion as to whether or not to issue a violation ticket sits with the
individual police officer, and in that regard the RCMP abusing power without
responsibility is fundamental to the police’s growing reputation for misconduct
and willful blindness to corruption in the force. I was wrongly and harmfully
attacked with police action that punitively deters resistance by owners and
innocent victims and has been publicized in the strata minutes in a campaign of
fraudulent misrepresentations and character assignation. Superintendent
Wilcott’s letter acts to legitimize said action and supposedly terminates what
is akin to the left hand’s investigation of the right hand’s behaviour. Established
protocols like that are a recipe for injustice and an indication of a complicit
power alliance that unscrupulously defers to and insidiously supports
oppressive strata governance.
As the registered
strata plan and Strata Property Act are both public records I am enclosing a
copy of the graphic that I provided to Constable Anselmo. If anything further
is required please let me know and I will provide it.
I look forward to
hearing from you.
Dianne Bond
(Email: dianne.bond@yahoo.ca Phone:
604-464-9642)
enc.
***************************
Dianne Bond 409 B 1215 Lansdowne Drive, Coquitlam, BC V3E 2P2
Email: dianne.bond@yahoo.ca Phone: 604-464-9642
June 21, 2016
Office of the Chairman
Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP
Post Office Box 1722, Station B
Ottawa, Ontario K1P 0B3
Attention: Ian McPhail, Fax: 1- 613-952-8045
Re: Ticket for trespass issued by RCMP on September 27, 2014, CPC File: 2014-2936
For what it’s worth, I write to confirm my understanding of your Chairperson's Final Report on the above matter dated stamped “June 8, 2016” and wish that I knew of a nicer way of telling the truth, as I do not wish to be rude.
I note that your cover letter and report received in the mail on June 20, 2016, nearly 21 months after the incident, signed in heavy black marker, bears the same address as the address for the Commissioner for Public Complaints, with just the name changed.
It is disappointing that the coming into force of the Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act on November 28, 2014, did not create a more timely, accountable, and transparent framework for investigations so that Canadians could have confidence in their national police force.
Contrary to the allegations made in your paragraph 8, I think it is important to note that although you wear different hats, I understand that the RCMP and the Commission are both directly or indirectly dependant on the government, including cheques that come from the Treasury Board, all too often resulting in the left hand investigating the right hand to reach the desired conclusions.
What you call a careful review in paragraph 9 is not of my complaint, it is of repeat investigations conducted and terminated unreasonably by the same constable. I think that if your findings were based on a careful review of my complaint against the RCMP the substantive elements of the strata plan, material sections of the Strata Property Act (the Act) and evidence of dishonesty and unjust enrichment would not disappear in the investigative materials and your 7-page report, amidst your dismissal of the incorrectness of the investigation, calling that not the issue. If that is what you think, your office is an unreasonable and deceptive waste of taxpayers’ money, and you should be ashamed.
It is clear that police support of members of strata management, acting in conflict for their own interests contrary to the Act and my wish for peace and enjoyment of my home, perpetuates the ongoing conflict with the strata council that you mention in paragraph 19, but you do not mention the RCMP’s role in that, or the persistent failure of investigators to interview me about the unreasonable conduct of those investigators.
In paragraph 20 you say many of the facts are not in dispute and in a 6-point list you characterize the subject property as my “neighbour’s property” when, in contrast to those acting against me, I provided documentary proof to the contrary. You also list your assertion that I made it clear that I had no intention of remaining off of the property, when I have never been on the property of my neighbour in the first place, and I was legally entitled to access and enjoy the common property under the Act. Your twisting of facts and of what is not in dispute is alarming.
When you label a victim of fraud as "intransigent" in your report the way that you do, it sounds disparaging. In the public complaint investigation it seems that you could not read or understand land titles and legislation sufficiently well to recognize representations that were "without merit."
Contrary to your paragraph 24, I did listen to all the opposing and defiant misrepresentations of the facts and law, and in contrast to Constable Anselmo and others, I told the truth, I continue to do so, and I think you must very well know that.
Contrary to your paragraph 27, limited common property is not designated by the strata agent, fencing, or proximity to the strata lot of an owner acting in conflict for their own unjust enrichment contrary to the Act; it is designated by the strata plan. I pointed this out to Constable Anselmo along with a graphic illustration of significant changes in the use and appearance of common property and resultant encroachment on my patio as a visual indicator of oppression and corruption, and if he had any reason to disbelieve me the strata plan records are registered in the Land Title Office and anyone interested could electronically confirm their validity. In fact, the Common Property Record registered pursuant to s. 14.4 of the Strata Property Regulation further proves that, despite whatever the strata agent may have professed, none of the subject property is limited common property.
Contrary to your paragraph 28, I did not sit on a chair in the driveway to make a point, I used the deck to do that. I sat on a chair in the driveway to relieve pain from a disability.
The bias that is apparent in your report and is the source of my complaint is clearly illustrated in the footnote to your paragraph 29 where you talk about authority to arrest and cite the section of the Trespass Act that is not applicable (s. 4) to the facts in this case, instead of the section that is applicable (s. 4.1) in both fact and law.
With respect to your paragraph 30, Constable Anselmo’s private intentions, his choice of wording, or when he spoke to the strata agent does not change the fact that he immediately made it crystal clear to me that he was falsely accusing me of trespass based on the assertions of my neighbours, their status, and his own notions from visual indicators such as the location of the deck on the property and the fencing. The important point is that he stubbornly disregarded material evidence, recklessly made false allegations, failed to conduct a complete and thorough investigation, and erroneously issued a violation ticket when he ought to have known better.
If you think, as you say in paragraph 31, that the information before the Commission does not support this, then information that I provided must have been withheld from you. If anyone conducted a complete and thorough investigation into my complaint about the RCMP disregarding the registered strata plan, relevant parts of the Act, and physical evidence of oppression and unjust enrichment, then the substantive elements of those issues would not be missing from your report or need to be posted on my RCMP blog. The crux of the matter is that but for Constable Anselmo’s failure to accept or reasonably investigate material evidence supporting the true facts and governing law the erroneous ticket would not have issued, and you would not be making the matter worse.
Contrary to your paragraph 32, while I studiously acknowledged all of the elements of trespass under the Trespass Act, I pointed out that none of the required elements, including the material definitions and prohibited acts, fit the facts of this case, and I totally disputed the accusations against me of any offence.
As you say in your report, “The issue of whether a trespass occurred was simple in this case.” That’s true; the alleged trespass simply did not occur, I went to court to prove it, and there was no excuse for Constable Anselmo to falsely accuse me and issue me a ticket, and no excuse for you disturbing me for so long. To twist that around in your report is in my opinion contrary to the public interest and opposite to transparency. It is unfair and deceptive.
Your report is an insidious piece of work, and your failure to address material information that is before the Commission in support of truth and accountability is sickening. It is, however, consistent with the left hand investigating the right hand to support the defensive mandate of the RCMP and the Commission with respect to this matter.
I understand that a copy of your report may have been forwarded to the Minister of Public Safety, so in hopes for protection of the vulnerable, including myself, I will send a copy of this to Ralph Goodale and Mike Morris, even though Mike Morris served with the RCMP in BC for 32 years.
Dianne Bond
cc Ralph Goodale, Mike Morris
