On January 18, 2017, the Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner (OPCC) received a copy of Mr. Dan Berladyn’s registered complaint describing his concerns with members of the Port Moody Police Department (PMPD) on January 26, 2016-February 18, 2016.

Actually, I originally filed a complaint all Mr. Berladyn submitted a complaint to our office that contained a list of members from the PMPD and the statement, “In those Self-Serving Acts, FraserHealth had contributed to the loss of my home, my immediate family, myextended family, my friends, my peers, my associates, my employers, my clients, my creditors, my reputation, my health, my possessions and my livelihood. I was only seeking Help.” Mr. Berladyn went on to state, “The actions of the Port Moody Police Department, with 3 year veteran, Jenn OHASHI, a new appointmented Mental Health Liaison Officer are deeply intertwined with the actions of FraserHealth. As I describe the Truth in the events that took place, I would like you to review.” In British Columbia, a complaint against a municipal police officer or department must be reviewed by the Police Complaint Commissioner to determine whether it is admissible under Division 3 – Process Respecting Alleged Misconduct. If the allegations concern the policies or services provided by a police department, the complaint is then processed pursuant to Division 5 – Process Respecting Department Service and Policy Complaints. A complaint may contain elements of both. A complaint, or a part of the complaint, is admissible under Division 3 if: i) The conduct alleged would, if substantiated, constitute misconduct by the member; ii) The complaint is submitted within 12 months of the date of the incident referred to; and Page 2 February 16, 2017 OPCC 2017-13022 Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner British Columbia, Canada iii) The complaint is not frivolous or vexatious. In reviewing a complaint, our office may contact the police agency involved or the complainant to obtain further information that may assist us in arriving at a principled decision regarding the admissibility of the complaint. We are careful not to weigh the evidence at this stage, but in exercising our gatekeeping function, we must ensure we have considered all the relevant circumstances which provide an accurate context to the matter. On January 27, 2017, our office spoke with Mr. Berladyn in order to determine what, specifically, he was complaining about in relation to his interactions with the PMPD. Mr. Berladyn advised that on January 26, 2016, he was apprehended under section 28 of the Mental Health Act by members of the PMPD. Mr. Berladyn also reported that upon his release from hospital a week later he was charged with public mischief by members of the PMPD. Mr. Berladyn stated he was apprehended under section 28 of the Mental Health Act by members from the PMPD a second time on February 18, 2016. Mr. Berladyn stated he should not have been arrested or apprehended at any time because he is not a threat to anyone. The analyst asked Mr. Berladyn what was the outcome of his public mischief charge. Mr. Berladyn advised the analyst he was found guilty of intent to injure on July 22, 2016. With respect to Mr. Berladyn’s complaint, we received information from the PMPD. Our office requested and reviewed several General Occurrence Hardcopies (GO Reports) related to Mr. Berladyn’s complaint. According to the GO Report dated January 26, 2016, a member of the public provided the PMPD Mental Health Officer (MHO) with a package containing screen shots from Mr. Berladyn’s Facebook page on January 25, 2016. The screenshots contained posts in which Mr. Berladyn stated he wanted to kill his brother. The MHO formed the grounds to apprehend Mr. Berladyn under section 28 of the Mental Health Act given the content of Mr. Berladyn’s Facebook posts about his brother, and the family’s recent concerns about Mr. Berladyn’s behaviour and communications with them. The MHO and two other members of the PMPD attended Mr. Berladyn’s residence at approximately 12:10 hours, apprehended him without incident, and transported him to Royal Columbian Hospital. A psychiatrist working in the Psychiatric Emergency Department certified and admitted Mr. Berladyn. According to the GO Report dated February 10, 2016, Mr. Berladyn was in hospital for seven days following the apprehension on January 26, 2016. Mr. Berladyn sent our office a 330 page document outlining his family history and his interactions with the PMPD. On page 238, Mr. Berladyn confirms he was released from hospital on February 3, 2016. On February 16, 2016, Mr. Berladyn was apprehended a second time under section 28 of the Mental Health Act by members from PMPD. According to the GO Report, at 16:39 hours PMPD was contacted by Tri-Cities Mental Health Centre and advised that a psychiatrist was in the process of completing a Form 4 for Mr. Berladyn’s apprehension. Members attended Mr. Berladyn’s residence and apprehended him. Page 3 February 16, 2017 OPCC 2017-13022 Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner British Columbia, Canada On February 18, 2016, Mr. Berladyn was released from the hospital. PMPD was informed of his discharge and the MHO felt it was important to put protective measures in place for Mr. Berladyn’s mother. Members attended the hospital, arrested Mr. Berladyn for public mischief and released him on a promise to appear with conditions. Mr. Berladyn reported to our office on January 27, 2017, that he was appeared in court on July 22, 2016 in relation to this charge. Our office used Court Services Online to verify this statement, and determined that Mr. Berladyn was ordered to enter into a section 810 recognizance on July 22, 2016, in Port Coquitlam Provincial Court. Mr. Berladyn complained to our office that he should not have been apprehended under section 28 of the Mental Health Act on January 26, 2016, by members of PMPD. Under the Mental Health Act, police officers in British Columbia have the authority to apprehend and take a person to a physician for examination if satisfied from personal observations, or information received, that the person is acting in a manner likely to endanger that person’s own safety or the safety of others, and is apparently a person with a mental disorder. In this circumstance, the PMPD had received information that Mr. Berladyn had threatened to harm his brother in the lead up to his apprehension. It is apparent that the officers made the determination that Mr. Berladyn met the criteria to be apprehended, and he was taken to the hospital for assessment by a doctor. Mr. Berladyn was certified by a doctor upon being admitted to the hospital, and held in care by doctors’ orders for seven days. Police officers are afforded significant deference in their independent exercise of discretion in making any investigative determinations. In order for a complaint related to the exercise of this discretion to be admissible under the Police Act, the conduct must be a significant departure from the conduct of a reasonable officer properly informed in the same circumstances to constitute misconduct. Mr. Berladyn may not agree with the members’ decision to apprehend him, but the conduct described would not, if substantiated, constitute misconduct as defined by the Police Act. When Mr. Berladyn spoke with our office on January 26, 2017, he stated he should not have been arrested for public mischief because he was not a threat to his family. Mr. Berladyn also stated during the same call that as a result of the public mischief charge he had appeared in Port Coquitlam Provincial Court on July 22, 2016. At that time, a judge was satisfied by the adduced evidence that Mr. Berladyn’s family had a reasonable grounds for fear, and ordered Mr. Berladyn to enter into a recognizance under section 810 of the Criminal Code. The OPCC does not have the jurisdiction to disturb the findings of a provincial court judge, and therefore this complaint is inadmissible. Mr. Berladyn told our office he should not have been apprehended under section 28 of the Mental Health Act on February 16, 2016, by members of PMPD. Our office notes that Mr. Berladyn was apprehended on February 16, 2016, because a psychiatrist issued a Form 4 which is a medical certificate that allows for the involuntary admittance of individuals into psychiatric care under section 22 of the Mental Health Act. Tri-Cities Mental Health Centre called PMPD to request police assistance with Mr. Berladyn’s apprehension. Police officers have a duty to respond to calls from health care practitioners who request police assistance with Page 4 February 16, 2017 OPCC 2017-13022 Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner British Columbia, Canada apprehensions authorized by the Mental Health Act. Mr. Berladyn may disagree with his physicians’ decision to apprehend him, but the conduct described would not, if substantiated, constitute misconduct by the PMPD members as defined by the Police Act. Having reviewed Mr. Berladyn’s complaint and the relevant information, we have determined that his complaint is inadmissible. We are satisfied that the conduct described in these circumstances would not, if substantiated, constitute misconduct as defined pursuant to section 77 of the Police Act. Our jurisdiction is limited to those specific types of misconduct outlined in the Act. Mr. Berladyn’s complaint does not describe conduct that falls within the definition of misconduct and therefore, falls outside of the jurisdiction of the Act. Accordingly, pursuant to section 83(1)(d) of the Police Act, and following careful and serious consideration of Berladyn’s complaint, we direct that no further action under Division 3 of the