CAN LANDLORD TELL TENANT WHEN/HOW LONG TO SHOWER?

HOMESTEAD LAND HOLDINGS IN KINGSTON, ONTARIO HAS SUNK TO A NEW ALL-TIME LOW. THEY ARE ACCUSING ME OF TAKING A SHOWER, WHEN IN FACT THERE WAS NO RUNNING WATER IN MY APARTMENT AT THE TIME. IS THIS SOMETHING THAT WILL BE CONDONED AND/OR SANCTIONED BY THE ONTARIO LANDLORD TENANT BOARD? ARE LANDLORDS ALLOWED TO TELL TENANTS WHEN AND FOR HOW LONG THEY MAY TAKE A SHOWER? IS THIS A VIOLATION OF MY HUMAN RIGHTS OR JUST AN INVASION OF MY PRIVACY?

PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING E-MAIL, WHICH SENT EARLIER TO THE RENTAL OFFICE ON JOHNSON ST. IN KINGSTON. SEE HOW THE SUPERINTENDENT BACKTRACKED AND TOLD ME A LIE ABOUT THE TIME HE WAS AT MY DOOR. ALSO READ HOW HE ALLEGES THAT HE COULD HEAR WATER OUTSIDE MY DOOR FROM THE BATHROOM, WHICH IS AT LEAST 30 FEET FROM THE OUTSIDE HALLWAY, WITH TWO ROOMS (KITCHEN AND DINING ROOM) AND ONE FIREWALL IN BETWEEN. YOU WILL SEE HOW RIDICULOUS THE LANDLORD IS BEING AND HOW FAR THEY WILL GO TO HARASS A FEMALE MIDDLE-AGED TENANT WHO LIVES ALONE.

----- Original Message -----
From: _________@hotmail.com
To: Cheryl Lambert ; Michael Terkalas ; homesteadkingston@cogeco.net
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 8:25 PM
Subject: Are you rationing time in the shower now? & I REPORTED ANOTHER ALTERCATION IN 401 TO JOHN AT 2:56 P.M. JUNE 20/08
Cheryl and Michael:

What the hell is going on here now? Your stupor was pounding on my door at 6:50 p.m. I had just gotten out of the shower a short time earlier and when he pounded on the door, I was on the telephone with my sister and had been on the telephone with her since 6:23 p.m. (she checked the time on her telephone's call display for me to confirm the exact time I called). I asked who was pounding at the door several times until he finally answered (I thought it could have been Cheryl's good little buddy, Gilbert again). I asked him to wait a second, until I threw on my bathrobe, before opening the door. He was asking whether anything was wrong, stating that the morons in 401 told him that I was running water in the bathroom for over an hour.

He not only told me that the morons in 401 were stating I was running water for over an hour, he also said that he heard it. Well, if he had come here directly from 401 AS HE SPECIFICALLY STATED HE HAD, and alleges that he DEFINITELY heard running water from my apartment, then there is no way that he had heard running water from my apartment (SEE THE TIMES ABOVE).

What the hell were they doing down in 401 anyway, especially since they are so noisy all the time themselves? Do they actually sit in the bathroom, timing me when they think I may be in the shower? KEEP IN MIND THAT THE BATHROOM IN THE NEXT APARTMENT (503) IS DIRECTLY BEHIND MY BATHROOM. PERHAPS SOMEONE IN THERE WAS USING THE SHOWER AS WELL OR RUNNING OTHER WATER, AND THE HILLBILLIES DOWNSTAIRS ARE TRYING TO DIVERT ATTENTION AWAY FROM THEMSELVES, BECAUSE OF ALL THE NOISE THEY MAKE. It seems to me that this is a case of them trying to get revenge on me, for the noise complaints made against them..

Like I stated, "What the hell"? For one thing, I was not in the shower anywhere near that length of time. Even if I was, which I was NOT, what the hell business if that of yours, your stupors, or anyone else? IS IT IN MY LEASE THAT YOU CAN TELL ME WHEN I MAY OR MAY NOT TAKE A SHOWER? ALSO IS IT IN THE LEASE, THAT YOU CAN YOU TELL ME HOW LONG I MAY TAKE IN THE SHOWER? I even asked him, facetiously, whether he thought I was so big that I would need that long to get clean in the shower. For another thing, are you water Nazis and dictating exactly how long a tenant can use their shower? We have received no notices to that effect. Is that the next step and how far do you intend to go, to try to control my personal affairs? If I had a visitor/guest or other tenant in this apartment, surely the shower would be used more frequently. How much time would the idiots in 401 have to then spend in their bathroom, listening to how long someone may be using the facilities in my apartment. I am the only person living here.

You are doing absolutely nothing about all the noise that these idiots make in 401. You have done nothing about the constant loud altercations that occur in that apartment on a daily, and even more frequent at times, basis. YET, your stupor will harass me about how long I am allegedly in the shower!!!

I telephoned the stupor at about 7:15 p.m., after realizing that there was no way he could have heard water running in my bathroom. I told him that, after he had asked me many weeks ago about something like that, I checked for myself. I went into my bathroom and ran water in the tub, leaving the bathroom door open. I went into the hallway and could not hear any running water. In fact, the next time I saw him after that, I advised him about how I had performed this experiment. He, at the time, told me that work had been done on the plumbing and nothing about what exactly could have caused the sound of running water the idiots in 401 had allegedly heard. I commented also that I had noticed that the water had been turned off several times, in the interim. It was my impression that this problem had been rectified.

When he was at my door at 6:50 p.m., he specifically told me that he had just then heard running water in my bathroom. When I told him that I had been on the phone since 6:23 p.m. and that I was out of the shower about 5 - 10 minutes prior to calling my sister, and that then there was no way he could have just heard water running in my bathroom, BECAUSE THERE WAS NO WATER RUNNING, he changed his story. He then told me that he had been here earlier (at 6:00) and had to go outside. Then he tried to say that he had heard the water running from the hallway at that time. HE COULD HAVE AT LEAST TRIED TO KEEP HIS STORY STRAIGHT AND GIVE ME AN HONEST ANSWER. WHEN I TOLD HIM IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE TO HEAR RUNNING WATER AT 6:50 P.M., HE CONVENIENTLY CHANGED HIS ACCOUNT OF THE EVENTS. I asked him, from where did he hear the running water. I think that is a reasonable and logical question to ask. He said that he could not say, it was a violation of tenant privacy. WHY WOULD HE NOT SAY EXACTLY WHERE THE WATER WAS RUNNING, IF HE WAS ACCUSING ME OF RUNNING THE WATER. UNLESS HE ALSO HEARD WATER FROM SOMEWHERE ELSE, THEN HOW WOULD IT BE A VIOLATION OF ANOTHER TENANT'S PRIVACY? ALSO, IF HE COULD NOT SAY, THEN I TAKE IT THAT HE COULD NOT DETERMINE WHERE THE WATER WAS RUNNING IN THE FIRST PLACE AND DECIDED TO HARASS ME. WHAT A BIG SURPRISE THAT IS. HARASS A MIDDLE-AGED WOMAN ON DISABILITY. THEN AGAIN, HISTORICALLY THAT IS WHAT YOU DO SO WELL AND THIS STUPOR APPEARS TO BE VERY WELL TRAINED IN YOUR COMPANY POLICIES AND PROCEDURES. HOW F'ING RIDICULOUS IS THAT? HE WAS TRYING TO ACCUSE ME OF RUNNING WATER WHEN I WAS IN FACT NOT. I told him that I thought he was lying.

I THEN asked him to come to my apartment right away, to perform the aforementioned experiment. I told him to come here immediately, upon which we would turn on the water in the bathroom, and listen for it outside the apartment door. He refused and said something along the lines of, have a good night, and hung up. IF HE WERE SO SURE THAT THE WATER HAD BEEN RUNNING IN MY APARTMENT, THEN HE SHOULD HAVE COME UP HERE AND LISTENED FOR HIMSELF, WITH ME AS A WITNESS, BUT HE REFUSED, WHICH MEANS TO ME THAT HE DOES NOT WANT TO BE PROVED WRONG.

Another point of interest, I had to telephone the stupor yesterday at 2:56 p.m. There was yet another loud altercation occurring in 401 and had been for some time. He told me that he would check it out. I told him that, while I was on the phone with him, I was not hearing anything, at that precise moment. Then I added that it was another reprieve, that could last for seconds or minutes, but that there is loud arguing going on there too frequently. I advised him that I am tired of hearing it.

I have sent COUNTLESS e-mails to you and filed many complaints over a period of months (since early November 2007) with the stupor about the noise and loud altercations in 401. YET, you do nothing about it. INSTEAD, he comes pounding on my door, because i may be taking a shower. THIS IS BLATANT HARASSMENT IN MY OPINION AND UTTERLY RIDICULOUS. I HAVE BEEN HERE SINCE AUGUST OF 1994. IN THAT TIME, THERE HAS NOT BEEN A SINGLE NOISE VIOLATION MADE AGAINST ME. I DON'T ARGUE AND SLAM DOORS. I HAVE NEVER PLAYED LOUD MUSIC OR HAD THE VOLUME ON THE TV SET HIGH. ANY GUESTS HAVE NEVER MADE NOISE DISTURBANCES. NEITHER I NOR ANY GUESTS OF MINE HAVE EVER HARASSED, INTIMIDATED, OR INTERFERED WITH THE DAILY ACTIVITIES OR LIVES OF ANY OTHER TENANTS. CONVERSELY, SOMEONE WHO CHERYL TRIES TO SAY WAS NOT GILBERT (who by the way is living here for months without a lease, because that would affect Dave's ODSP benefits) COMES POUNDING ON MY DOOR IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT ON THE 17TH OF FEB., TERRIFYING ME, AND SHE TRIES TO SAY THAT, EVEN THOUGH ANOTHER TENANT SAW HIM GOING INTO 509, THAT IT WAS NOT HIM. I AM SURE THAT NOTHING HAS BEEN DONE ABOUT THAT SITUATION AND EVEN MORE SURE THAT NOTHING WILL BE DONE.

WHAT THE HELL AM I SUPPOSED TO DO, LET YOUR EMPLOYEE HARASS ME AND THEN NOT TEST THE FACT THAT RUNNING WATER CANNOT BE HEARD FROM MY BATHROOM INTO THE HALLWAY? AM I SUPPOSED TO LET YOU BULLIES WALK ALL OVER ME, ESPECIALLY OVER SOMETHING AS RIDICULOUS AS THIS? DO I HAVE TO FIND ANOTHER LAWYER OR CALL THE NEWSPAPERS LIKE I DID WHEN YOU HARASSED ME IN 2006? I AM SURE THEY WOULD BE INTERESTED IN THE FACT THAT A TENANT IS BEING ACCUSED OF TAKING A SHOWER!

SARAH ____, NORMANDY 501

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CHECK OUT:


http://www.homesteadlandholdingsltd.blogspot.com/
http://www.homesteadlandholdings.blogspot.com/

SCAM Alert: Universal Energy Corp.

TO ANY READER: PLEASE CONTACT ME IF YOU HAVE BEEN SCAMMED BY UNIVERSAL ENERGY CORPORATON. SINCE THE ONTARIO GOVERNMENT DEREGULATED UTILITY SERVICES, I WAS APPROACHED ON APRIL 12, 2006 BY A REPRESENTATIVE OF UNIVERSAL ENERGY CORPORATION.

Have you been scammed by the Universal Energy Corporation? Someone from their corporation knocked at my door on April 12, 2006. I live in a "security" apartment building in which solicitation is prohibited. The landlord has signs posted stating that fact. Before I even opened the door more than a crack with the chain on and before I could ask him, the man immediately advised me that he was not a salesman. I told him that solicitation was prohibited in the building and I would not open my door to "salespersons". He advised and repeatedly assured me that he was there to inform consumers about the deregulation of utilities by the Provincial Government, how the first increase in July would be from 5 cents/kwh to 10 cents/kwh (100% increase) , and how it would increase by 2008 to 20 cents/kwh (400% increase). He further advised he was acting as a consumer advocate and stated that, if I signed up immediately for a "fixed rate", I would be protected from the bloated electricity rate increases, by having my rate frozen at 8.63 cents/kwh. While he was here, we discussed many different ways to conserve energy (not just electricity), and I told him many of the ways I personally conserve energy, for example by using all fluorescent bulbs. Several times I again asked if he was a salesman just to be sure, and he repeatedly assured me he was not, that he was a consumer advocate, going door-to-door to simply educate consumers. He certainly educated me! Like a moron, I even offered and served him a cold beverage believe it or not, while this "jerk was nailing me to the barn door".

I received my Electric bill from the local utilities company in July. The rate had increased from 5 to 5.8 cents/kwh. I had unknowingly signed a "contract" with an independent utility company for a much higher rate, without even knowing it! Of course he did not tell me that!!!!!! Someone please advise me if you think I am wrong about this. The document which allegedly fixed my electric rate at 8.63 cents/kwh is supposed to protect me and keep my electricity rates frozen at a fixed rate, subsequently saving me money immediately and forever. The Ontario Energy Board set the rate at 5.8 cents/kwh. Am I actually saving money??? Of course not. It is costing me nearly 3 cents/kwh more than that set out by the Provincial Government OEB, all profit to Universal Energy, especially since the billing is still done by the local utility company!

That was on July 14/06. Straight away, I contacted Universal Energy to file a complaint and cancel the contract immediately. They refused to cancel it. I was told that I would have to contact their Compliance Dept. When I asked to be transferred to the Dept., I was advised they have no telephone extension and, even if they did, there was no one on site to speak with at any time. I asked for an e-mail address, so I could cancel the contract immediately and was advised they have no e-mail address. I was provided with an address and told that I had to fax or send a letter by "snail mail" to cancel. I asked to speak with a manager or someone in a position of authority, but the woman to whom I was transferred was equally uncooperative about all of my above concerns.

Immediately I telephoned the Ontario Energy Board and lodged an official complaint. Jeremy at OEB advised me that the way I was treated was typical and advised me to send the letter to Vanessa Anesetti, the Manager at Universal. I did it that afternoon. As of today, Wed. Aug. 16, 2006, they are refusing to cancel the contract, even though I have repeatedly explained how their rep misrepresented himself right from the beginning. They refuse to put anything in writing and are argumentative, insolent, and uncooperative on the phone. I have spoken with others at their office, but mostly with Anesetti.

Please go to http://universalenergycorpscam.blogspot.com/ to see some of the e-mail complaints I have made, not only to Universal Energy, but also the OEB and even Premier McGuinty. This information will be posted there, followed by copies of some of my correspondences and written complaints.

I am sure that I am not the only person, not only in Kingston, but also in Ontario, who is being scammed by these people. You may file complaints with the Ontario Energy Board at www.oeb.gov.on.ca (e-mail info@oeb.gov.on.ca) if you were also scammed by Universal Energy. Perhaps if enough people file complaints, they can do something about them. I don't know if it will help, but you may try contacting McGuinty at http://www.premier.gov.on.ca/home/default.asp?lang=EN. I personally have not found him (or my local MPP) to be helpful with other issues, but you never know, he may surprise me this time. He used to have an e-mail address, but there is a link on the page to contact him and you may submit your complaint directly through his site.

If anyone doubts the voracity of what I have stated, contact Universal Energy yourself. Pit Bulls were banned in Ontario, and yet these more ferocious and disreputable companies are not!

If anyone out there has any success, please let me know.

BELOW ARE SOME OF MY CORRESPONDENCS, IN MY DESPERATE ATTEMPT TO GET OUT OF THIS CONTRACT, WHICH I WAS TRICKED INTO SIGNING.:


----- Original Message -----
From: ___________________
To: complaints@oeb.gov.on.ca
Cc: customerservice@universalenergy.ca
Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 8:55 PM
Subject: Please pass on to Jeremy re OEB Complaint File No. 2006-037-23


Dear Jeremy:

I received a telephone voice message from a "Vanessa" at Universal Energy Compliance Dept., requesting that I telephone her regarding my ongoing complaint about Universal Energy and their representative who was in my home. My telephone display registered the number 416-224-9182 at 1:47 p.m. today. She asked me to telephone her at Extension 504, 1-877-672-5500 or after 5:00 p.m. to ask for Evelyn at Extension 502.

I do not trust any verbal communication with them, since I could be misrepresented on any point at any time, in the same way their representative deliberately misrepresented himself in my home.

The crux of my complaint is initially based on the fact that from my first contact with the representative of Universal Energy, who was in my home, misrepresented himself and his organization. He specifically made a point of advising me that he was not a salesman. This was before I even opened my door more than a crack and in direct reply when I specifically asked him if he was a sales rep of any kind. I placed strong emphasis on this statement from him, and specifically advised him that under no circumstances do I ever open my door to sales persons, for any reason. He repeatedly assured me that he was not there to sell me anything, but instead to strictly advise me as a consumer about the pending increases to electricity rates. He advised me that the first increase would be a 100% increase in the rates, from 5 cents/kwh to 10 cents/kwh, eventually becoming 20 cent/kwh. He told me that I was signing an agreement to simply lock in my energy rates to protect myself from energy rates that were doubling, then quadrupling from the 5 cent/kwh rate. He never represented himself as a salesperson of any kind. Instead, he presented himself as a consumer advocate. He assured me that my rates would always be lower and fixed, thereby protecting me no matter how high the energy rates increased. He employed blatant scare tactics concerning the rate increases, but never once told me he was a sales rep for Universal Energy. I always thought he was a representative from a consumer advocacy group and he never told me otherwise or even intimated that he was a sale rep..

He was in my apartment long enough, to tell me at any time that he was actually a salesperson, at which time I would have ordered him to leave immediately. We even discussed ways to conserve energy, and I told him the many methods I personally use to conserve energy, beginning with replacing my electrical bulbs with fluorescent bulbs as soon as possible after I moved here in August of 1994, further explaining how much more expensive they were in the 1990s than they are today. I also told him how infrequently I use my own car, running all of my errands together about twice a month, rather than wasting gas by running individual errands on different days. He definitely came across, to me, as a consumer advocate and not a sales person!

Hope to get rid of these parasites from Universal Energy very soon. I have to wonder how many others they scared into signing contracts under false pretenses.

S_________

_____________________________________________________

----- Original Message -----
From: ___________________
To: Joseph Rosa ; customerservice@universalenergy.ca
Sent: Monday, August 07, 2006 8:48 AM
Subject: OEB Complaint File No. 2006-037-23 regarding Universal Energy Corporation


Dear Joseph:

I tried to reach Vanessa Anesetti last week, reaching her voice mail and leaving a message for her, but I have heard nothing from her yet. In my message, I added that I had sent several e-mail messages to her via the Universal Energy website, of course copies of which were also sent to your office. I still and adamantly maintain that their representative entered my apartment under false pretenses, insisting even upon my direct questioning several times, that he was not a salesperson, prior to and after entering my home. This is absolutely ridiculous! I find it even more appalling that he used scare tactics, under the pretense of being a consumer advocate, advising me that the first utility rate increase would be 100% (from 5 cents/kwh to 10 cents/kwh) and in due course, would actually increase to 20 cents/kwh. This is what he directly and specifically quoted to me personally, elaborating that the "alleged" contract would protect me from those huge increases, by locking in the amount I would be charged per kwh and ultimately protecting me from these huge increases.

The company, which owns my apartment building, has a very stringent policy against solicitation on all rental properties which they own, even to the point of posting "No Solicitation" signs in the lobbies and foyers of their buildings. This policy can be confirmed by contacting the landlord, Homestead Land Holdings Limited, 80 Johnson Street, Kingston, ON K7L 1X7, PH: 613-546-1146 (downtown main rental office), e-mail address: homesteadkingston@cogeco.net. You may confirm this policy by contacting them and making a general inquiry, as to their policy concerning solicitation in all of their rental units, via either method. You will find that, ultimately, this Universal Energy representative was NOT supposed to be on the premises AT ALL. To the best of my knowledge, the only solicitation which the landlord allows at their rental units, are solicitations which are required by law, which would be politicians campaigning at election times and government election/census-related matters. I reiterate that there is a "No Solicitation" sign posted at the entrance to the building. The building is also a "Security building", meaning that in order for non-residents to enter the premises at all, they must enter a security code and be "buzzed" into the building in the first place. How did this representative of Universal Energy even gain access to the tenants in the building, in the first place???

Adding insult to injury, if you review my initial e-mail contacts with your office, you will find that when I first contacted Universal Energy regarding my complaints, I was not only advised that they have no "e-mail address" which I could contact, I was also advised that they had neither an extension number nor a contact person if there was an extension number, through which I could lodge a complaint. You will also find that, the very first time I contacted your office with my complaint, I spoke with Jeremy. He immediately advised me to contact Vanessa Anesetti directly, providing me with her address at their head office. The e-mail which I sent to Jeremy, which included that information, I printed out and immediately that day sent in the mail through Canada Post Corporation, to Ms. Anesetti.

As I have previously stated, I will settle for nothing less than the total annihilation of the bogus contract, especially but not exclusively because I was contacted under false pretenses. Would your office be in a position of authority, in which you could contact all of the tenants in this building (there are 65 units, with 12 apartments numbered "#01 to #12, ie. 501 to 512, on floors 1 through 5, and 5 apartments in the basement level, which are numbered 1 to 5), to see how many tenants were actually "scared" into signing contracts with Universal Energy under false pretenses? As I already stated, their representative was not even supposed to be on the premises "soliciting" in the first place. Just for the sake of your information, the building superintendent is located in Apt. 110. Even in my capacity as a tenant, I am not allowed to solicit within the building and, if I were to contact other tenants about this matter, it would be considered by the landlord as a direct violation of their "No Solicitation" policy.

This is not intended to reflect negatively on your office, but I am also sending a copy of this correspondence to the office of Premier McGuinty, via his website. I personally feel that this matter has gone on for far too long with no resolution and a province-wide investigation, regarding the practices of Universal Energy Corporation, should be implemented. I have no doubt that you will find many other consumers, who will have similar and/or identical complaints about Universal Energy, as mine. At the very end of this correspondence, I am including a copy of the correspondence I received via e-mail from the Premier's office, as well as a copy of the webpage through which I directly submitted a copy of this correspondence to Premier McGuinty's office.

Sincerely, S____
----- Original Message -----
From: Joseph Rosa
To: _____________________
Sent: Friday, July 28, 2006 1:00 PM
Subject: RE: Please pass on to Jeremy re OEB Complaint File No. 2006-037-23


Ref#2006-1945




Hello S_____



Thank you for your email to the Board dated July 27, 2006 regarding your issues with Universal Energy. Unfortunately Jeremy is no longer at the Board so I will advise you now.



Our contact at universal is Vanessa Anesetti. If she is calling you it is directly due to Jeremy contacting her on your behalf. Please call her back to resolve this issue. She will report back to us once she has spoken to you and ensured a resolution.



I do understand your concerns however she is trustworthy and I do hope she will be helpful. You may ask her to follow up your conversation by sending you a letter.



Regards,





Joe Rosa

Consumer Relations Centre

Ontario Energy Board


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: ___________________
Sent: July 27, 2006 8:55 PM
To: Complaints
Cc: customerservice@universalenergy.ca
Subject: Please pass on to Jeremy re OEB Complaint File No. 2006-037-23
Importance: High



Dear Jeremy:



I received a telephone voice message from a "Vanessa" at Universal Energy Compliance Dept., requesting that I telephone her regarding my ongoing complaint about Universal Energy and their representative who was in my home. My telephone display registered the number 416-224-9182 at 1:47 p.m. today. She asked me to telephone her at Extension 504, 1-877-672-5500 or after 5:00 p.m. to ask for Evelyn at Extension 502.



I do not trust any verbal communication with them, since I could be misrepresented on any point at any time, in the same way their representative deliberately misrepresented himself in my home.



The crux of my complaint is initially based on the fact that from my first contact with the representative of Universal Energy, who was in my home, misrepresented himself and his organization. He specifically made a point of advising me that he was not a salesman. This was before I even opened my door more than a crack and in direct reply when I specifically asked him if he was a sales rep of any kind. I placed strong emphasis on this statement from him, and specifically advised him that under no circumstances do I ever open my door to sales persons, for any reason. He repeatedly assured me that he was not there to sell me anything, but instead to strictly advise me as a consumer about the pending increases to electricity rates. He advised me that the first increase would be a 100% increase in the rates, from 5 cents/kwh to 10 cents/kwh, eventually becoming 20 cent/kwh. He told me that I was signing an agreement to simply lock in my energy rates to protect myself from energy rates that were doubling, then quadrupling from the 5 cent/kwh rate. He never represented himself as a salesperson of any kind. Instead, he presented himself as a consumer advocate. He assured me that my rates would always be lower and fixed, thereby protecting me no matter how high the energy rates increased. He employed blatant scare tactics concerning the rate increases, but never once told me he was a sales rep for Universal Energy. I always thought he was a representative from a consumer advocacy group and he never told me otherwise or even intimated that he was a sale rep..



He was in my apartment long enough, to tell me at any time that he was actually a salesperson, at which time I would have ordered him to leave immediately. We even discussed ways to conserve energy, and I told him the many methods I personally use to conserve energy, beginning with replacing my electrical bulbs with fluorescent bulbs as soon as possible after I moved here in August of 1994, further explaining how much more expensive they were in the 1990s than they are today. I also told him how infrequently I use my own car, running all of my errands together about twice a month, rather than wasting gas by running individual errands on different days. He definitely came across, to me, as a consumer advocate and not a sales person!



Hope to get rid of these parasites from Universal Energy very soon. I have to wonder how many others they scared into signing contracts under false pretenses.



S__________


PROOF OF MY CORRESPONDENCE WITH PREMIER MCGUINTY'S OFFICE:


----- Original Message -----
From: Premier's Website
To: __________________
Sent: Monday, August 07, 2006 8:43 AM
Subject: Send The Premier Your Thoughts



Thanks for your online message.

I often say that Ontario works best when we work together, so hearing from you is important to me.

Every letter and message I receive is read and reviewed carefully. If your message requires an answer, we'll do our best to get back to you as quickly as we can.

Given the volume of online messages and letters I receive, and the fact that I may need to share your message with one of my cabinet ministers or the appropriate government officials for more information, a response may take several business days.

Thanks again for taking the time to write me.

Premier Dalton McGuinty
Government of Ontario
Whitney Block, Room 4620
99 Wellesley St. W.
Toronto, ON M7A 1A1
Fax: (416) 325-3745
Telephone: (416) 325-3777

* * *

Please note that this e-mail account is not monitored. For further inquiries, please direct your online message through http://www.premier.gov.on.ca/feedback/default.asp.

Confidentiality Warning: This e-mail contains information intended only for the use of the individual named above. If you have received this e-mail in error, we would appreciate it if you could advise us through the Premier's website at http://www.premier.gov.on.ca/feedback/default.asp and destroy all copies of this message. Thank you.

Skip to content
FRANÇAIS

Meet Dalton | Journal | Team | News | Gallery | Get Involved | Your Thoughts

Send Dalton Your Thoughts
Use the form below to send an e-mail to me on the issues that matter to you most.

Find out more about what you can expect when you send your message.


My message to Dalton:

Dear Joseph:

I tried to reach Vanessa Anesetti last week, reaching her voice mail and leaving a message for her, but I have heard nothing from her yet. In my message, I added that I had sent several e-mail messages to her via the Universal Energy website, of course copies of which were also sent to your office. I still and adamantly maintain that their representative entered my apartment under false pretenses, insisting even upon my direct questioning several times, that he was not a salesperson, prior to and after entering my home. This is absolutely ridiculous! I find it even more appalling that he used scare tactics, under the pretense of being a consumer advocate, advising me that the first utility rate increase would be 100% (from 5 cents/kwh to 10 cents/kwh) and in due course, would actually increase to 20 cents/kwh. This is what he directly and specifically quoted to me personally, elaborating that the "alleged" contract would protect me from those huge increases, by locking in the amount I would be charged per kwh and ultimately protecting me from these huge increases.

The company, which owns my apartment building, has a very stringent policy against solicitation on all rental properties which they own, even to the point of posting "No Solicitation" signs in the lobbies and foyers of their buildings. This policy can be confirmed by contacting the landlord, Homestead Land Holdings Limited, 80 Johnson Street, Kingston, ON K7L 1X7, PH: 613-546-1146 (downtown main rental office), e-mail address: homesteadkingston@cogeco.net. You may confirm this policy by contacting them and making a general inquiry, as to their policy concerning solicitation in all of their rental units, via either method. You will find that, ultimately, this Universal Energy representative was NOT supposed to be on the premises AT ALL. To the best of my knowledge, the only solicitation which the landlord allows at their rental units, are solicitations which are required by law, which would be politicians campaigning at election times and government election/census-related matters. I reiterate that there is a "No Solicitation" sign posted at the entrance to the building. The building is also a "Security building", meaning that in order for non-residents to enter the premises at all, they must enter a security code and be "buzzed" into the building in the first place. How did this representative of Universal Energy even gain access to the tenants in the building, in the first place???

Adding insult to injury, if you review my initial e-mail contacts with your office, you will find that when I first contacted Universal Energy regarding my complaints, I was not only advised that they have no "e-mail address" which I could contact, I was also advised that they had neither an extension number nor a contact person if there was an extension number, through which I could lodge a complaint. You will also find that, the very first time I contacted your office with my complaint, I spoke with Jeremy. He immediately advised me to contact Vanessa Anesetti directly, providing me with her address at their head office. The e-mail which I sent to Jeremy, which included that information, I printed out and immediately that day sent in the mail through Canada Post Corporation, to Ms. Anesetti.

As I have previously stated, I will settle for nothing less than the total annihilation of the bogus contract, especially but not exclusively because I was contacted under false pretenses. Would your office be in a position of authority, in which you could contact all of the tenants in this building (there are 65 units, with 12 apartments numbered "#01 to #12, ie. 501 to 512, on floors 1 through 5, and 5 apartments in the basement level, which are numbered 1 to 5), to see how many tenants were actually "scared" into signing contracts with Universal Energy under false pretenses? As I already stated, their representative was not even supposed to be on the premises "soliciting" in the first place. Just for the sake of your information, the building superintendent is located in Apt. 110. Even in my capacity as a tenant, I am not allowed to solicit within the building and, if I were to contact other tenants about this matter, it would be considered by the landlord as a direct violation of their "No Solicitation" policy.

This is not intended to reflect negatively on your office, but I am also sending a copy of this correspondence to the office of Premier McGuinty, via his website. I personally feel that this matter has gone on for far too long with no resolution and a province-wide investigation, regarding the practices of Universal Energy Corporation, should be implemented. I have no doubt that you will find many other consumers, who will have similar and/or identical complaints about Universal Energy, as mine.

Sincerely, S____
----- Original Message -----
From: Joseph Rosa
To: ____________________
Sent: Friday, July 28, 2006 1:00 PM
Subject: RE: Please pass on to Jeremy re OEB Complaint File No. 2006-037-23


Ref#2006-1945





Hello S_____



Thank you for your email to the Board dated July 27, 2006 regarding your issues with Universal Energy. Unfortunately Jeremy is no longer at the Board so I will advise you now.



Our contact at universal is Vanessa Anesetti. If she is calling you it is directly due to Jeremy contacting her on your behalf. Please call her back to resolve this issue. She will report back to us once she has spoken to you and ensured a resolution.



I do understand your concerns however she is trustworthy and I do hope she will be helpful. You may ask her to follow up your conversation by sending you a letter.



Regards,





Joe Rosa

Consumer Relations Centre

Ontario Energy Board


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: ____________________
Sent: July 27, 2006 8:55 PM
To: Complaints
Cc: customerservice@universalenergy.ca
Subject: Please pass on to Jeremy re OEB Complaint File No. 2006-037-23
Importance: High



Dear Jeremy:



I received a telephone voice message from a "Vanessa" at Universal Energy Compliance Dept., requesting that I telephone her regarding my ongoing complaint about Universal Energy and their representative who was in my home. My telephone display registered the number 416-224-9182 at 1:47 p.m. today. She asked me to telephone her at Extension 504, 1-877-672-5500 or after 5:00 p.m. to ask for Evelyn at Extension 502.



I do not trust any verbal communication with them, since I could be misrepresented on any point at any time, in the same way their representative deliberately misrepresented himself in my home.



The crux of my complaint is initially based on the fact that from my first contact with the representative of Universal Energy, who was in my home, misrepresented himself and his organization. He specifically made a point of advising me that he was not a salesman. This was before I even opened my door more than a crack and in direct reply when I specifically asked him if he was a sales rep of any kind. I placed strong emphasis on this statement from him, and specifically advised him that under no circumstances do I ever open my door to sales persons, for any reason. He repeatedly assured me that he was not there to sell me anything, but instead to strictly advise me as a consumer about the pending increases to electricity rates. He advised me that the first increase would be a 100% increase in the rates, from 5 cents/kwh to 10 cents/kwh, eventually becoming 20 cent/kwh. He told me that I was signing an agreement to simply lock in my energy rates to protect myself from energy rates that were doubling, then quadrupling from the 5 cent/kwh rate. He never represented himself as a salesperson of any kind. Instead, he presented himself as a consumer advocate. He assured me that my rates would always be lower and fixed, thereby protecting me no matter how high the energy rates increased. He employed blatant scare tactics concerning the rate increases, but never once told me he was a sales rep for Universal Energy. I always thought he was a representative from a consumer advocacy group and he never told me otherwise or even intimated that he was a sale rep..



He was in my apartment long enough, to tell me at any time that he was actually a salesperson, at which time I would have ordered him to leave immediately. We even discussed ways to conserve energy, and I told him the many methods I personally use to conserve energy, beginning with replacing my electrical bulbs with fluorescent bulbs as soon as possible after I moved here in August of 1994, further explaining how much more expensive they were in the 1990s than they are today. I also told him how infrequently I use my own car, running all of my errands together about twice a month, rather than wasting gas by running individual errands on different days. He definitely came across, to me, as a consumer advocate and not a sales person!



Hope to get rid of these parasites from Universal Energy very soon. I have to wonder how many others they scared into signing contracts under false pretenses.



S_________


E-mail:
When you send a message through my website, your privacy is protected by a number of security features.

If my message back to you contains personal information, the government's privacy rules require that I send you my reply by regular mail. In this case, you'll be asked to provide your postal address or you can provide it now.

Name:
Street Address:
City:
Postal/Zip:
Province/State:
Country:



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your privacy is important to us and we are committed to protecting your personal information. All personal information you choose to provide when contacting the Premier is collected in compliance with the Executive Council Act and s.28(b) of the Interpretation Act. The information will be used to contact you regarding your comments or inquiry. Questions about the collection of information can be directed to the Manager, Correspondence Services Unit, Whitney Block, Room 4620, 99 Wellesley St. W., Toronto, Ontario M7A 1A1, 416-325-3777. For more information on protecting your personal information, please visit our privacy statement.
Your Thoughts

Video Journal
Look behind the headlines to hear what I have to say about today’s important issues.

Life Events
Driver's licences, birth certificates and other services.

Get Involved
Contests, quizzes and special events.

Your Thoughts
Share your views, opinions and questions.

Mailing List
Sign up to the mailing list for regular news updates.

Quick Poll
Do you plan to visit Ontario Place this summer?

Yes No



HOME | SEARCH | SITE MAP | CONTACT DALTON | FRANÇAIS | ONTARIO.CA

This site is maintained by the Government of Ontario

Privacy | Important Notices
© Queen's Printer for Ontario, 2006
Last Modified: April 1, 2006


----- Original Message -----
From: ___________________
To: Joseph Rosa ; customerservice@universalenergy.ca
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 1:00 AM
Subject: As of August 16, 2006, Universal Energy Still Refuses to cancel contract; Universal Energy forward immediately to Vanessa Anesetti


Subject: As of August 16, 2006, Universal Energy Still Refuses to cancel contract; Universal Energy forward immediately to Vanessa Anesetti


Dear Joseph:

Despite my many complaints, the typewritten letter I sent to Vanessa Anesetti at Universal Energy (as per Jeremy's instructions when I first contacted your office nearly a month ago), the fact that their representative directly lied to me (telling me he was not a salesman, but a consumer advocate instead), they still are refusing to cancel the contract that was obtained under false pretenses.

On Thursday, August 10th, I contacted their office. I hung up the phone when the representative in the Compliance Dept. (I believe it was Vanessa) replied to my repeated requests to cancel the contract, by saying "If we decide to cancel the contract". I immediately hung up after making a hasty reply to her.

WHAT AM I SUPPOSED TO DO NOW?????? I followed their requests, to the letter, for canceling the contract, and the instructions I received from you and Jeremy at your office. Copies of all correspondence have been sent directly to Universal Energy, including my letter of complaint to Premier McGuinty.

Please consider this matter unresolved and actively pursue an investigation into their illegal practices and procedures immediately. Also please ensure that, since I was tricked into signing a contract, which I was lead to believe was an agreement to protect me from high energy prices but in fact was a contract guaranteeing Universal Energy profits and not protecting me from increasing rates at all, that the entire contract be cancelled as though it never occurred.

Please get back to me ASAP. I am also sending a copy of this correspondence to Premier McGuinty. I am copying this correspondence and submitting it through his site. Just like with the last correspondence I forwarded to the Premier's office, below, I shall copy the automatic reply that I will receive from his office, which confirms that my complaint has been received.

S____

CONFIRMATION E-MAIL THAT MY LETTER OF COMPLAINT WAS RECEIVED BY THE PREMIER'S OFFICE:

----- Original Message -----
From: Premier's Website
To: ___________________
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 12:58 AM
Subject: Send The Premier Your Thoughts



Thanks for your online message.

I often say that Ontario works best when we work together, so hearing from you is important to me.

Every letter and message I receive is read and reviewed carefully. If your message requires an answer, we'll do our best to get back to you as quickly as we can.

Given the volume of online messages and letters I receive, and the fact that I may need to share your message with one of my cabinet ministers or the appropriate government officials for more information, a response may take several business days.

Thanks again for taking the time to write me.

Premier Dalton McGuinty
Government of Ontario
Whitney Block, Room 4620
99 Wellesley St. W.
Toronto, ON M7A 1A1
Fax: (416) 325-3745
Telephone: (416) 325-3777

* * *

Please note that this e-mail account is not monitored. For further inquiries, please direct your online message through http://www.premier.gov.on.ca/feedback/default.asp.

Confidentiality Warning: This e-mail contains information intended only for the use of the individual named above. If you have received this e-mail in error, we would appreciate it if you could advise us through the Premier's website at http://www.premier.gov.on.ca/feedback/default.asp and destroy all copies of this message. Thank you.

Possible By-Laws Violated by Landlord (By-Law #2005-100)

On Tuesday, March 14, 2006, while the City of Kingston By-Law Enforcement Officer was in my apartment to perform a temperature reading, I showed him my printed copy of the most recent City of Kingston Property Standards By-Law (By-Law No. 2005-100). I explained to him that I had printed it directly from the City of Kingston website and he confirmed that it was indeed the most recent version.

I began to go through it, showing to him all of the areas that I had highlighted in green highlighter, where it appeared that Homestead Land Holdings Limited was in potential violation of some of these by-laws.

Doors and Windows
4.9 All exterior openings of buildings shall be fitted with doors or windows or other suitable means to prevent entrance of wind or rain into the building.

I explained to the officer, and had reported to him previously, that my windows were very drafty, there was not even any paint on the inside wooden frame, and that water was leaking in beneath the window. I have 35 mm photographs and VHS/8 mm original camcorder video of the mould/mildew that was growing directly beneath my windows.

4.10 Windows, exterior doors, and basement or cellar hatchways shall be maintained in good repair.

Obviously, my windows were in a most deplorable state of repair. When they were eventually replaced, the officer issued a verbal order to Homestead to replace all of my windows first, when they began to replace windows in June 2005!

4.11 Rotted or damaged doors, door frames, window frames, sashes and casings, weather-stripping, broken glass and defective door and window hardware shall be repaired and/or replaced, and maintained and protected from the elements and against decay and rust by application of a weather coating material such as paint or other protective materials.

Again, I have 35 mm photographs, as well as original 8 mm camcorder cassette and VHS copy which proves the total state of disrepair that all of my windows were in. I personally showed these to the officer.

Exterior Walls
4.14 Exterior walls of buildings and their components including soffit and fascia shall be maintained so as to prevent their deterioration due to weather and insects and shall be so maintained by painting, restoring, or repairing the walls coping or flashing and by waterproofing of joints.

The mould damage that occurred in my master bedroom in December of 2004 was a direct result of standing water on the roof being blown under the flashing and leaking directly into my room. This was confirmed by Williams Brothers Restoration, who finally inspected the roof in January of 2005, after the mould returned. The then building superintendent, Bill Gilbert prior to this, repeatedly kept trying to tell me that the mould was a result of condensation within the apartment. It was he who then personally told me, that which was reported to him by the roofing contractor, that water was blowing under the flashing and subsequently leaking into my apartment.

Pest Prevention

4.26 Buildings shall be kept free of rodents, vermin and insects at all times.

I personally had complained to the then superintendent Bill Gilbert numerous times that I had an infestation of ladybugs, spiders, houseflies, and earwigs. He personally told me each time that Homestead Land Holdings would do nothing about it, more specifically any insect/bug that ate other insects/bugs. This I found out from a subsequent super was totally bogus. He had refused to do anything about it, because I was the one who made the complaint. I have photographs and videos of the many dead houseflies trapped between both panes in my windows, especially the window in the second bedroom!!!


Roofs
4.28 The roof of every building shall be structurally sound, weatherproof and free of loose or unsecured objects and materials and excessive accumulations of ice and snow.

This was not the case in Decemer of 2004, when water leaked under the flashing, into my master bedroom, subsequently causing personal property damage to my clothing, bedding, etc. in excess of $6,222! Homestead Land Holdings has flat out refused to compensate even one single penny for all of the personal property of mine, which was totally destroyed by the mould directly resulting from that roof leak!!!

Stairs, Porches and Balconies
4.31 Inside and outside stairs, porches, balconies and landings shall be maintained so as to be free of holes, cracks and other defects.

I challenge anyone to enter the stairwell at the basement level of this building, closest to the elevator. You will immediately see cracks in the concrete.

Structural Soundness
4.37 Materials which have been damaged or show evidence of rot or other deterioration shall be repaired or replaced.

I personally complained, through the proper channels (superintendents) about the deplorable condition of my windows. I can also personally substantiate the condition, before they were finally replaced on June 29, 2005, with 35 mm photographs and original 8 mm cancorder cassette/VHS videos.

Dors, Windows, and Skylights
5.9 Windows, skylights, doors and basement or cellar hatchways shall be maintained in good repair, weather tight and reasonably draught-free. Maintenance includes painting, replacing damaged doors, door frames and their components, window frames, sashes and casing, replacing non-serviceable hardware, weathre-stripping and re-glazing.

Again, before the windows were finally replaced in my unit in June of 2005, I have 35 mm photographs and original 8 mm camcorder cassette/VHS video proof of the deplorable condition of each window.

5.14 All windows and skylights in a dwelling unit that are capable of being opened shall be fitted and equipped with screens that are maintained in good repair and free from defects and missing components.

Again, I have 35 mm photographs and original 8 mm camcorder cassette/VHS video proof of the deplorable condition my screens were in. I am willing to show this to anyone who wishes to view it.

Garbage Disposal
5.28 Every dwelling and eery dwelling unit with the dwelling shall have such receptacles as may be necessary to contain all garbage and rubbish.

There are dumpsters outside the building.

5.29 Receptacles shall be:
5.29.1 Constructed of a watertight material;
5.29.2 constructed to prevent the entry of rodents;
5.29.3 provided with a tight fitting cover,which shall be kept closed at all times excent when garbage is being placed therein;

At the best of times, the plastic garbage container, which is located just outside the wooden structure where tenants dispose of their garbage bags some times does not have the cover placed on it, or if it is, some times it is loosely placed on top of it. Also, some times the doors to these dumpsters are left open. I have reported this to the rental office personally.

Heating and Heating System

5.41 Every dwelling unit shall be provided with a heating system capable of maintaining a temperature of 21.1 degrees C (70 degrees F)

5.43 Room temperature shall be determined at any point in the room.

When the property standards officer and the heating contractor (employee of Homestead) took temperature readings in my unit, they always took the readings in the centre of the room or very near the centre of the room, and never close to the floor where it was coldest or near the windows where it was also coldest. WHY THEN DOES 5.43 IMMEDIATELY ABOVE SPECIFICALLY STATE THAT ROOM TEMPERATURE SHALL BE DETERMINED AT ANY POINT IN THE ROOM IF THIS IS NOT PUT INTO PRACTICE????? For most of February 2006 and until the day after my Housing Tribunal Hearing on March 15, 2006, I reported repeatedly to Homstead Land Holdings that there was absolutely no heat emanating from my living room radiator, the largest radiator in the whole apartment. This was in spite of the fact that the pipes leading to the rad were hot. I was personally told by the heating contractor, who replaced Therrien, that it was too late in the season to repair it. This was a day or so prior to the March 15, 2006 hearing. Yet, at approximately 6:00 a.m. on the morning of Friday, March 17, I looked through my living room window when I heard the recycling truck on the property. I was shocked to find that there was finally heat emanating from this rad. This leads me to the next paragraph:

5.44 Every building or part of a building which is rented or leased as dwelling or lving accommodation and which, as between the tenant or lessee and the landlord, is normally heated by or at the expense of the landlord shall, between the 15th day of September in each year and the 1st day of June of the following year, be provided with adequate and suitable heat by or at the expense of the landlord; and for the purposes of this by-law "adequate and suitable heat" means that the minimum tempreature of the air in the accommodationwhich is available to the tenant or lessee is 21.1 degrees C (70 degrees F).

I reiterate from above that absolutely no heat emanated from my living room radiator for nearly, if not, the whole month of February of 2006 and I did not feel heat emanate from this rad until the morning of Friday, March 17, 2006 at about 6:00 a.m. As of the evening of Wednesday, March 15, hours after I returned from the Housing Tribunal Hearing, there was no heat emanating from that radiator. I personally can attest to this fact.

Ventilation
5.70 Every habitable room except living rooms and dining rooms shall have an opening or openings for ventilation providing an unobstructed free-flow area of at least 0.28 square meters (3 square feet) oran approved system of mechanical ventilation such that the air is changed once every hour.

It was not until sometime in 2000, when Elsie Davis was the super in the building, that a huge fan was finally fitted on the roof, to the venting system in the building. To this day, this fan is only turned on a various times of the day and is not continually on. There are no fans provided in the units. The air is obviously not changed once every hour, especially considering the fan is not even turned on for the entire 24 hours of the day! It is first turned on at 6 a.m. daily. and off during the overnight hours.

5.72 Where an opening is used for ventilation and it not permanently protected by a window or door so as to exclude rodents, vermin and insects it shall be:
5.72.1 adequately screened with durable material; and
5.72.2 otherwise protected so as to effectively prevent the entry of rodents, vermin and insects.

In the tiny vents in both my kitchen and bathroom, to which I have already stated the roof fan is not turned on for many hours of the day, there is no screen of any kind over either of these vents!

5.73 Any openings for natural ventilation shall be protected with insect screen of corrosion-resistant material.

5.74 Every bathroom or toilet room shall have an opening or openings for ventilation providing an unobstructed free-flow area of at least 0.09 square metres (1 square foot), or an equivalent such as an electric fan and a duct which shall terminate outside, shall be provided,installed and maintained.

I stated above that the fan on the roof of the building is not operating 24 hours per day. It is first turned on, by timer, at 6:00 a.m. each morning, and is turned off and on through the day at other times, also set by a timer.

Walls, Ceilings and Floors

5.79 Where necessary, interior walls shall have baseboards that shall be maintained in good repair and tight fitting so as to prevent the accumulation of dust and garbage.

When the disintegrating asbestos floor tiles were finally replaced in 2005 (I kept a couple of samples of these, just in case!), caulking was not done along the baseboards in the kitchen, living room/dining room, the hallway (not by doors and door frames) and no caulking in the bathroom in particular behind the toilet. Caulking was only done by the bathtub.

Homestead.on.ca Refuse Comp.Damage/Violate Prop. Stan. 4.28

MOULD DAMAGE RESULTING FROM LEAK IN ROOF – IN VIOLATION OF CITY OF KINGSTON PROPERTY STANDARDS BY-LAW ROOF 4.28 “The roof of every building shall be structurally sound, weatherproof and free of loose or unsecured objects and materials and excessive amounts of ice and snow.” And 4.29 “Where eavestroughing, roof guttering and down piping is provided it shall be kept in good repair, including being watertight, protected by paint or other preservative and securely fastened to the building.”

IF ANYONE DOUBTS THE VORACITY OF MY CLAIMS, I HAVE PHOTOGRAPHIC (35 MM) AND VIDEOTAPED EVIDENCE OF EVERYTHING, INCLUDING ALL OF THE DAMAGE ITEMS, ON BOTH VHS AND THE ORIGINAL SANYO 8 MM CAMCORDER CASSETTE.

I PERSONALLY OBTAINED ESTIMATES TO REPLACE ALL OF MY PERSONAL CLOTHING, BEDDING, ETC. AND THE AMOUNT WAS IN EXCESS OF $6,200 ($6,222.63 TAXES INCLUSIVE). HOMESTEAD LAND HOLDINGS HAS NOT COMPENSATED FOR THE TOTAL DESTRUCTION OF ANY OF MY PERSONAL PROPERTY, WHICH RESULTED FROM THE ROOF LEAK, A DIRECT VIOLATION OF THE ABOVE-NOTED CITY OF KINGSTON PROPERTY STANDARDS BY-LAW, WHICH I ALSO PERSONALLY REPORTED TO THE PROPERTY STANDARDS BY-LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER. THE SAME OFFICER ATTENDED THE SITE OF THE MOULD DAMAGE IN DEC, 2004 AND NEVER CONTACTED THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, WHICH I BELIEVE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE TO ASCERTAIN/CONFIRM THAT THIS WAS TOXIC MOULD. IT WAS HOWEVER, TOXIC TO ME, BECAUSE I BECAME VERY ILL AND HAD TO UNDERGO ANTIBIOTIC THERAPY FOR A SERIOUS LUNG INFECTION WHICH RESULTED FROM THE MOULD INFESTATION. THEY REFUSE TO OFFER EVEN A SINGLE PENNY IN COMPENSATION. RENTER’S BEWARE!!!

I PERSONALLY REPORTED THESE AND MANY OTHER BY-LAW VIOLATIONS TO THE PROPERTY STANDARDS BY-LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER ON THE AFTERNOON OF TUESDAY, MARCH 15, 2005 WHEN HE CAME TO MY APARTMENT IN THE AFTERNOON TO TAKE A TEMPERATURE READING. I SHOWED HIM MY PRINTOUT FROM THE CITY OF KINGSTON WEBSITE OF THE MOST RECENT. WHILE I PERSONALLY SHOWED HIM MY PRINTED COPY, HE CONFIRMED THAT IT WAS THE MOST RECENT VERSION: BY-LAW NO. 2005-100.


WORK COMPLETED OR TO BE DONE AT 501 - 154 PARKWAY:

Please note that the windows, throughout the whole apartment (which are very warped, drafty, and leaky) are SUPPOSED to be replaced. I have NOT YET BEEN ADVISED when Homestead Land Holdings Limited actually plans to have these windows replaced. (PS: The windows were actually finally replaced June 29, 2005). Since moving in, I have asked all superintendents when the work would be done, especially the 2nd bedroom window, but none of them knew. Also note that, in 1999 when I had planned to move out, I listed in writing the problems with the windows (among other required repairs, especially the disintegrating asbestos floor tiles) when I went to the rental office on Johnson Street, to give them written notice that I planned to move. None of the repairs were made until AFTER the mould damage was discovered in the master bedroom and the landlord was ordered by the City of Kingston Property Standards Officer to make these repairs.

Thursday, December 30/04

Cheryl Lambert (Property Manager) inspected the apartment, along with Doug Werden (City of Kingston Property Standards Officer) and Bill Gilbert (Building Superintendent).

Measurements for the kitchen counter were taken by Kevin (Homestead employee).

Friday, December 31/04

The mould in the master bedroom was treated and the room painted by Jeff (employee of painting contractor).

Tuesday, January 4/05

Superintendent viewed the mould/water droplets that had reappeared in the master bedroom.

Wednesday, January 5/05

Superintendent fixed a leak in the bathtub faucet.

Thursday, January 6, 05

Kevin installed the kitchen countertop, replaced the basket in the kitchen sink, and installed a basin in the bathroom.

Between January 10 and 13/05

The painter (Jeff) had to reseal mould that had returned to master bedroom and repaint. Also, the heating contractor (Maurice Theirren) fixed the bedroom radiator, which had not been working for an undetermined amount of time, by opening a valve on the roof. Unfortunately, I did not record the exact dates that these repairs were made on my calendar.

Wednesday, January 12/05

Superintendent informed me that there had been a leak on the roof; standing water was being blown under the roof flashing, causing the leak in the master bedroom (which of course resulted in the mould).

Thursday, January 13/05

Superintendent and Kris (tenant in building) ripped up the asbestos floor tiles in the master bedroom. I helped them box up the old tiles.

Friday, January 14/05

The floor of the master bedroom was retiled by Don (Homestead employee).

Wednesday, January 19/05

The bathtub was refinished by an employee of The Bathtub Doctor.

Thursday, January 20/05

Superintendent and Kris (tenant) ripped up the asbestos floor tiles in the hallway, kitchen, and part of the living/dining room area. They also ripped up the linoleum in the bathroom.

Friday, January 21/05

The area noted on Jan. 20 was tiled by Don (Homestead employee).

Thursday, February 3/05

Superintendent and Kris (tenant) ripped up the remaining asbestos floor tiles in the living/dining room area.

Friday, February 4/05

The area noted on Feb. 3 was tiled by Don (Homestead employee).

Tuesday, February 8/05

The bathroom, hallway, kitchen, living/dining room was painted by an employee of the painting contractor hired by Homestead (think his name was Larry, though not 100% sure).

The superintendent fixed the deadbolt lock on the apartment door (Pete MacDonald, a previous super, had not installed it correctly in 1998, leaving a gaping hole that he personally covered with duct tape. I had asked each successive super to fix it, but was not done previously.

The superintendent replaced some electrical switch plates, which had been covered with some type of decorative paper by a previous tenant.

Tuesday, February 15/05

A ceiling fan was installed in the dining area. I do not know the name of the electrician, or whether he is a sub-contractor or Homestead employee.

Wednesday, February 23/05

Kevin (Homestead employee) installed a new bathroom door and scraped off some of the build-up of paint on kitchen cabinet door fixtures (so they could close properly). He also repaired the lower hinge on the 2nd bedroom door and the lower hinge on the 3rd bedroom door.

A painter (same one who was here on Feb. 8) painted the new bathroom door, and the bedroom doors. The inside of the 3rd bedroom door had never been painted and the master bedroom door had never been painted.

Thursday, February 24/05

Kevin (Homestead employee) installed the closet doors for the coat closet, which is located just inside the apartment door. This closet had never been fitted with doors. He also installed the towel rack on the bathroom door.

Monday, February 28/05

The superintendent attempted to install a toilet tissue holder in the bathroom. The screws were not secure in the plaster. The super said that he would have to borrow a drill, in order to install it properly. JOB INCOMPLETE – UNFINISHED

Wednesday, June 29/05

New windows installed in the living room and bedrooms.


REPLACEMENT COST FOR DAMAGED ITEMS

17 Silk Blouses: Tan Jay - $118.00 + 17.70 (taxes) = $135.70 X 17 = $2,306.90

1 - 100% Cotton Hanging Garment Bag - Sears Catalogue = $34.99 + 5.25 (taxes) = $40.24

2 New Suitcases (one had been used only once) - both 29" soft-sided upright pullman suitcases: Sears @ $159.99 + 24.00 (taxes) = $183.99 each X2 = $367.98

11 New towels with colour print: Sears $29.99 + 4.50 (taxes) = $34.49 X 11 = $379.39

Queen Size feather bed cover: TSC - $39.86, 9.29 (S&H), 7.37 (taxes) = $56.52

King size white goose down baffle box duvet: Sears - 499.99 + 75.00 (taxes) = $574.99

2 King size white goose down pillows: Sears - $139.99 ea. 21.00 (taxes) = 160.99 X 2 = $321.98

2 Queen size cluster fill foam pillows: Sears - $24.99 each + 3.75 (taxes) - 28.74 X 2 = $57.48

1 Queen size feather pillow: Sears - $25.99 + 3.90 (taxes) = $29.89

1 Queen size pillowcase – Nowhere could I find a price for a single pillowcase in this size.

1 Pair down-filled slipper boots - Foot Duvet at The Added Touch (Oakville) online: $35.00 + 8.50 (S & H) + 6.52 (taxes) = $50.02

1 Black Simulated Leather Attaché Case - Grand and Toy: $59.99 + 9.00 = $68.99

1 Black Simulated Organizer File - Grand and Toy: $79.99 + 12.00 (taxes) = $91.99

2 sets of vertical blinds (to fit a patio door), which I had custom-made for a previous residence; they had been unused since and had been in new condition). Sears: $350.00 (valence included - installation not included) + 52.50 (taxes) = 402.50 X 2 = $805.00

1 Heavy gauge vinyl blind in master bedroom (64" X 80"): Sears - $180.00 + 27.00 (taxes) = $207.00 (installation extra)

9 pairs of slacks - The style and quality of slacks that I could find which was as close as possible to the originals were at Sears: $39.97 + 6.00 (taxes) = 45.97 X 9 = $413.73

6 pairs of summer cotton crop pants: Sears online (style closest as possible to original - most stores not carrying summer wear yet - $34.99 + 5.25 (taxes) = 40.24 X 6 = $241.44

Restore solid wood jewellery box: Dip and Strip $150.00 + 22.50 (taxes) = $172.50

Queen Size pillow case (2) 24.86 + 6.96 (S&H) + 4.77 (taxes) = $36.59

TOTAL ESTIMATED REPLACEMENT: $6.222.63
INDEX OF T-90 VHS
VIDEOTAPE (TAPE COUNTER IS SHOWN AT THE LEFT)

Beginning of tape - video of mould damage in bedroom

0:55 Heavy gauge vinyl blind and rod pocket curtains ruined

1:20 The master bedroom window - indicating how badly it is warped

1:40 Mould under some of the bedroom floor tiles

3:10 Mould on the back of the headboard of bed

3:25 Mould on the material of the canopy of the vertical blinds (which had been stored on the top of headboard

4:35 Space under the hutch of the headboard, where I had stored 7 boxes (I had to clean and repack the contents)

6:15 Another shot of the mould on the headboard

7:00 Closet mould

8:00 The silk tops in the closet that were damaged by mould

8:20 The cotton garment bag, in which the damaged silk tops were held. Other silk clothing had also been in the garment bag, but those on one side were damaged, some others on the side further from the wall were not damaged. I had removed these and show them later on in the video (hanging in bathroom on shower rod and in 2nd bedroom).

9:30 Another shot of the silk tops still in the garment bag, hanging in closet

17:00 I start throwing the silk blouses into a garbage bag.

22:00 I put the garment bag in the garbage bag, along with the silk tops.

24:00 2 queen size pillows (1 foam-filled and 1 feather) in pillowcase, and 3rd pillow (foam-filled) in garbage bag

26:00 I put the duvet, down-filled slipper boots and 2 queen-sized down pillows in a garbage bag.

30:00 2 new suitcases (29" upright pullman)

32:00 I put the 11 new towels, which had been stored in one of the suitcases while it was on the floor of the closet, in a garbage bag. The towels were still wet.

36:00 The 2nd suitcase - indicate had only been used once.

38:55 Queen size feather bed - put in garbage bag.

Video of clothing that had been saved from the closet - hanging in bathroom
Video of other items saved from closet - in 2nd bedroom

53:10 Take slacks and crop pants (all still damp) out of box and put into garbage bag.

1:00:00 Video of damage to other items (jewellery box paint damage, soft-sided organizer file and attaché).

1:08:30 The disintegrating floor tiles in the hallway

1:09:00 Windows and the mildew underneath them.

1:10:00 New kitchen counter
Disintegrating kitchen and other floor tiles in living room

1:12:40 I lift a loose tile with my fingertip.

1:13:30 Video of tape that previous tenant had put on disintegrating tiles (these had been under my coffee table all these years).

1:14:00 Video where several tiles had been replaced before I moved in.

1:14:20 I lift loose tile with my fingertip.

1:16:00 Bathroom and bathroom door, switch plate in bathroom.

1:16:40 Vent in bathroom, wall by the tub (next to the door) and taps in bathtub.

1:17:00 Vent in bathroom again (dirt still blowing in through vent when windy), medicine chest, and under basin.

1:18:00 Wall by tub and inside bottom of bathroom door, toilet tank (coloured paint drops on cover), and toilet.

1:18:45 Doorway to bathroom, where I had to tape over where door closes (very drafty).

1:19:00 3rd bedroom window and cracks underneath (due to warped, leaky windows).
Also wall in hallway where paint blistered and peeled (I applied tape to help prevent further peeling several years ago).

1:20:00 2nd bedroom window, indicating how I had to put a stick diagonally across the top pane soon after I moved in - I had asked each superintendent to repair it ever since. Also, video of the cracks underneath the window, because of leaky, warped windows. I state how I tried to show this to Cheryl Lambert, when she was standing in hallway outside the room on December 30, but she had ignored me.

1:22:00 Stuff stacked in the 2nd bedroom, which had been retrieved from the master bedroom closet.

1:22:40 Living room windows, mildew under windows (I had to apply tape because the plaster had also cracked and to attempt to reduce spread of mildew), mildew on frames and windows.

1:24:00 Window in living room covered with frost, and then some more video of disintegrating living room tiles.

1:24:40 Some cracks in paint on living room wall.

1:25:40 Lift another living room tile with fingertip.

1:26:00 Another shot of disintegrating floor tiles in hallway.

1:26:35 "Nick" in headboard, when super and neighbour were pushing it back into bedroom, after floor was retiled.

1:27:00 End of tape


INDEX OF VIDEO (AUG/02) REPAIRS THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE YEARS EARLIER

Begin Switch plate in kitchen

:15 Vent in kitchen covered because of "black stuff" blowing into room and onto stovetop when windy outside, even when exhaust fan is operating.

:51 Kitchen counter and sink

:55 Living room windows

1:30 Mildew under living room windows

1:42 Spot where 2 tiles missing in hallway

1:47 Paint blister and peeling on wall in hallway

2:05 Behind toilet in bathroom

2:35 Medicine Chest

2:43 Bathtub

2:57 Basin

3:15 Bathtub again

3:55 Bathroom vent - had to cover because of "black stuff" blowing into tub when windy outside, even when exhaust fan is operating.

5:00 Bathroom door and linoleum

5:14 Floor tiles in living/dining room

6:30 Several tiles in living room that were replaced (different colour) sometime (could be years) before I moved in.

6:40 Tiles in hallway

6:48 Window in master bedroom

7:00 Electrical switch plate in dining room

7:05 Area on kitchen ceiling that was not painted before I moved in (looks like someone started to paint it, but did not complete it.

7:31 Crack in paint on dining room wall

8:05 Cracks in paint in living room wall (between 2 light fixtures); then in kitchen wall

8:47 Blistering in paint at end of hallway by bathroom and plaster chipping away from cover that is loosely fitted over the access area to bathtub fixtures (the water shut off valves)

9:25 My 7 year old kitty, who was dying with severe respiratory problems (Aug. 11/02). I think disintegrating asbestos floor tiles could have caused his respiratory problems. I had to euthanize him (collapsed lungs) on Sept. 11, 2002. Kitties who died in Feb./02 and June/04 also had a respiratory problem, as does 11 1/2 year old, who was diagnosed in 2003 with his lungs full of tumours (his condition is terminal).

10:02 End of tape.
WITNESSES – File K-050120-031

Doug Werden, Property Standards Officer, City of Kingston, PH: 546-4291, Extension 3204
(Mr. Werden has digital photographs of the mould damage; he advised me that he could be subpoenaed as a witness for me, at which time he could produce the photographs)

Cheryl Lambert, Property Manager, Homestead Land Holdings, PH: 546-3146 (In the Spring or summer of 1999, I visited the rental office to give notice that I intended to move. At that time, I provided a detailed written list of problems with the apartment, with strong emphasis on the floor tiles and windows. That should still be on file at Homestead. Also, Lambert was here around Aug. or Sept. 2000, when we discussed the repairs. While repairs were being made recently, Gilbert advised me that the superintendents are not allowed to contact workers or contractors directly. All contacts, regarding repairs, must be made by Lambert.

Bill Gilbert, Building Superintendent, Homestead Land Holdings, PH: 531-7729

Elsie Davis, previous building superintendent who is currently the Homestead building superintendent at 130 Parkway, PH: 547-3085. I had filed an ORHT complaint (File No. EAT-02346) against her for using her key to unlock my apartment door without my permission, on three occasions in 1999, the first time Lambert was with her. Her husband, Arnold, installed the smoke detector in the hallway. On Wed., Dec. 20, 2000, while I was out, I believe that Davis and Lambert went through my apartment. When I returned home, my deadbolt was unlocked and I noticed that the toilet seat (which I always put down when I go out) was left up. Danny Barker (Apt. 502) advised me that, during my absence, he heard my door opening and closing several times. A note, which I had taped to my door for Lambert, had been removed and Lambert later advised me that she collected the note herself.

Greg Benson, previous building superintendent on two occasions (immediately before and after Elsie Davis, and immediately prior to Bill Gilbert). When leaving here the second time, he was demoted to assistant superintendent, to his sister-in-law Esther Legere, at 200 Parkway. I do not have a phone number for Benson, but the number for Legere who is also the superintendent of the 176 Parkway Townhouses, is 549-2581. During his second term, when I gave notice to move, Benson told me that he would do all the repairs to the apartment, if I stayed.

Pete MacDonald, building superintendent prior to Benson. He no longer works for Homestead. I think he is listed in the phone book under D. L. MacDonald at 15 Adelaide, PH: 549-3623. When I last spoke with another tenant about him in January, I was advised he still lives on Adelaide St.

Don (do not know his last name, his wife’s name is Connie) was the superintendent immediately prior to MacDonald, who was transferred to one of their buildings on Leroy Grant Drive. Don painted my hallway (helped by D. Vanhooser) and had a short circuit in the hall light fixed, while he was here.

Terry (I believe that was his first name) Kish was the superintendent when I moved in, but he left soon afterwards.

Kevin Cumpson, Handyman, Homestead Land Holdings employee, PH: 546-3146 (Kevin installed the kitchen counter, bathroom basin, bathroom door, closet doors, repaired 2nd and 3rd bedroom doors by repairing hinges, adjusted closures on kitchen cabinet doors so they would close)

Don (installed floor tiles, in all rooms except 2nd and 3rd bedrooms), employee of Homestead,
PH: 546-3146

Jeff, sub-contractor painter: Can only be contacted through Cheryl Lambert (Jeff sealed the mould in the master bedroom and painted it – twice)

Larry (I think that is what Kevin from Homestead called him), sub-contractor painter. Can only
Be contacted through Cheryl Lambert (He painted the bedroom doors, bathroom, hallway, living/dining room, and kitchen)

Tub Doctor, the company hired by Cheryl Lambert to resurface the bathtub

Electrician – I do not know his name or whether he is a Homestead employee – can only be contacted by Cheryl Lambert (he installed a ceiling fan in dining room after most of the work had been completed)

Maurice Therrien, Heating Contractor who repaired the master bedroom radiator. He had also previously walked through the apartment several times over the years, when looking for air-intake valves in the heating system, most recently January 10, 2001 (notice was distributed to 5th floor residents – when he arrived I advised him that he had found none when here 3 ½ years earlier with Pete McDonald), but I do not know how much he would have remembered about the condition of the apartment. When here in January, he was briefly in the apartment, going directly to the master bedroom to check the radiator. (There is a Maurice Therrien listed in the phone book at 7 Deerfield, Amherstview , 384-2782).

Roofing Contractor – I have heard superintendents refer to them as Williams Brothers Restoration– They can only be contacted through Cheryl Lambert at Homestead.

Dave Vanhooser (tenant in 509 who also previously helped Don, a previous superintendent, paint the hallway). PH: 548-0671

Kris Shillington (tenant in 407). Kris is the person, who helped Gilbert, rip up the old floor tiles. He has no telephone, but can be reached through Dave Vanhooser in 509 PH: 548-0671.

Danny Barker (tenant in 502). Danny and I haven’t talked in over a year, have not even bumped into each other in hallway or parking lot for many months, but I did show him the condition of the apartment once in Feb., 2003. I do not know how much he would remember. I have never telephoned him, but retrieved his number from the telephone book: PH: 531-4394. I had to make several noise complaints against him in 2004/05, but I think the superintendent only spoke with him informally about it.


This is a letter, which was sent to me by Lambert in December, 2000. I hand-wrote a reply, which I ultimately did not mail to her, because I contacted the office of the MPP John Gerretsen, hoping to enlist his assistance instead.

I am attaching the documents I sent to Gerretsen, which were later returned to me. Much of the documentation relates specifically to my ORHT complaint against Homestead. However, In those documents, I have highlighted (orange and blue highlighter) references to repairs, etc.








501 – 154 Parkway
March 28, 2005



Hi Dan:

I am enclosing a new estimate for replacement of items, which were damaged. It now includes a cost to repair the jewellery box and pillow case, although I could only get a price for a set of two pillowcases. I have visited many stores over the past several weeks and can find nothing, even remotely similar, to the jewellery box. The total estimate is now $6,222.63.

I am also enclosing a copy of several e-mails, which I have sent to Homestead’s area manager and property manager:

- Mar. 15: domestic disturbance in 502
- Mar. 15: guests from 503 propping open security door
- Mar. 23: loud music complaint against 503
- Mar. 28: Kingston By-Law Enforcement Officer delivered 2nd warning to 503
- Mar. 28: e-mail to Woock and Lambert regarding noise violations and other concerns

Landlord Vs. Blogger: Case Dismissed (Kingston ORHT Mar. 15/06)

I shall begin, by submitting some personal disclosures.

For anyone who has been following this case, I sincerely thank you for your interest. It is my hope that this can possibly help another Blogger or Tenant, so that none of the personal pain and anguish I have experienced and will continue to experience, will be in vain. For anyone, who has offered comments, I also thank you. I humbly welcome and appreciate all comments. I do not have to agree with them, to post them.

Alternatively, I must explicitly state, that I am actively and vehemently exercising my right to refuse to publish the blatantly abusive "trash", which some people feel they are justified in sending to me. These comments appear to be coming from apparent pseudo-psychological pseudo-psychiatric "wannabe" medical professionals. If anyone takes any kind of exception to this, I have maintained several copies of each of these documents, in separate places. I publish nothing that I cannot unequivocally substantiate. If any person sends a comment to the blog, that is not favourable towards me, I SHALL publish it as long as it is not a personal attack against me, my honesty, or my mental capacity. I will not censor an opinion, whether or not I approve of it. That is what my landlord has been trying to do to me.

If someone wishes to allege, for example, that I am a psychopath or a sociopath, suffer from delusions ranging from grandeur to paranoia, that I am schizophrenic or blatantly paranoid, or suffer from any form of mental disease or chemical imbalance, am currently being administered psychotropic, mood/chemical altering pharmaceuticals, without providing to me full medical substantiation and/or disclosure provided by a provincially- or federally-licensed Medical, Psychiatric or Psychologic College-approved medical, psychological or psychiatric professional, only after the medical professional has personally performed a thorough, comprehensive battery of examinations including serum levels of my psychopharmacological medications, of me with my expressed and informed consent, then I refuse to publish it.

One person, anonymously yet specifically made a point of stating there was no affiliation with the landlord, then proceeded to verbally abuse me, calling me a paranoid schizophrenic (I worked in a Psychology Dept. for years, have completed and passed 2 undergraduate Psych courses at Queen's University in Kingston with one being a 1st year elective and the other a 2nd year elective, I successfully completed another at St. Lawrence College Kingston Campus, have read countless articles/websites, personally transcribed countless scores of medical evaluations, including psych evaluations, read much of the DSM-III, transcribed scores of psych research papers, worked as a medical secretary for years, see where I am going with this? I don't think I need to post my entire CV here, do I?), advising me that I should print out the comments and take them to my own physician/psychiatrist to have my mental-stabilizing pharmaceuticals (I translated some of the actual comments, since they were so vulgar and inappropriate) adjusted, since it was apparent that my medications were no longer adequately controlling my paranoid/schizophrenic delusional ideations. This person stated that he/she read the Kingston Whig article, and did a blog search, reading every word. I have personally performed countless blog searches and internet searches myself and, without the URL, could not find my Blog! The legal team, who worked on my case, did the same thing.

In the same comment, it was then offered to me that, and I am quoting this directly and in verbatim from that submission on Sun., March 5th: "you appear to be having some substantial paranoia and delusional thinking.", "I am assuming you are suffering from schizophrenia.", and "I think it would be best for you and everyone involved if you spoke with your psychiatrist". Then there are my two PERSONAL favourite quotes: "I believe their decision to kick you out has more to do with the fact that you haven't paid your rent than your blog." and "Your psychosis is obviously active now and you are harassing your landlord.". Does the last statement sound remotely familiar, perhaps to statements the landlord has directly made about me in the application to have me evicted? The "harassing" part, I mean"? Of course, I do not know exactly who sent it. Can I reasonably surmise, about whom I think sent it. I think I am justified in doing so, but I won't state my suspicions directly here. So, yes, I refused to post it.

On the day of the hearing, I received another equally disturbing account of my mental instability and obvious psychoses. Like the previous one, it was left anonymously, at 7:07 p.m. It sounds, to me, like a vaguely similar, much more succinct and direct account, of the March 5th installment. I particularly like this one and quote in verbatim, as I received it: "To me, you sound like a sh__ disturber, and maybe even a little bit of a paranoid-delusional. Perhaps you should seek mental help...".

Never let it be stated, that I refused to offer equal space to publish the moronic rantings of pseudo-psychoprofessionals, who apparently perceive themselves as medical professionals, because they suffer from obvious delusions of grandeur and are also obviously in an apparent state of heightened psychosis and delusional paranoia; who perhaps are also exhibiting grossly exacerbated bi-polar tendencies, because their own brain chemical-altering psycho-pharmaceuticals are no longer sufficient to maintain an adequate chemical equilibrium. Tell me dears, are you hearing voices in your heads, which you might be perceiving as God? Classic schizophrenia. Oops, did I make a series of totally unauthorized professional medical/psychiatric diagnoses, after by-passing years of attending undergraduate, medical, post-graduate training, internships and residencies under the direct supervision of College-licensed professionals and without completing a thorough set of medical/psychological evaluations, also without receiving the informed consent of my patients? Well, I guess I did! In that case, I concede with humility, anyone can do it.

TO REVIEW THIS CASE: I posted details about a previous case that I filed against my landlord, Homestead Land Holdings Limited, on a personal web page at Lycos.com. The landlord notified me in Dec. 2004 that they forced the shut-down of that web page, citing it was libelous and defamatory.

The page consisted of details, from an Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal case, that I filed against the landlord, when the super ELSIE DAVIS NOW AT 130 PARKWAY (one time she was accompanied by the property manager CHERYL LAMBERT) used her key in an attempt to gain entry to my apartment, on three separate occasions, without my prior knowledge/consent. Were there other occasions when I was out? I believe it is possible, but am not paranoid enough to insist that it did happen.

How do I know? I was inside and did not hear her knock at the door each time, AS SHE ALLEGES. I heard her unlocking the deadbolt repeatedly and throwing herself at the door, trying to force it open (these details are already posted in the transcript from the Jan. 2, 2001 Hearing), but ENTRY was only prevented because I had engaged a barrel bolt lock.

I maintained that the landlord's agents (paralegal, super, heating contractor all PERJURED THEMSELVES at the hearing. They also brought in an Affidavit from the property manager, who was in France on vacation, but this was not accepted into evidence. However, the paralegal (FUDGE) states several times at the hearing, that the content of the Affidavit would be substantiated by the testimony of the witnesses. Because of false testimony, the landlord won the case and an order was issued against me. Of course, I was extremely angry about this. When I transcribe and post the testimony of the landlord's agents, after they were sworn in as I was, you will see many instances of conflicting testimony, between the landlord's agents!

In Dec. of 2004, the landlord's lawyer (son-in-law of Britton Smith Sr., Don Bayne in Ottawa) sent a letter to me, advising that they had forced the shut-down of that web page. In the interim, I had discovered the Google Blog, when I downloaded a Google Toolbar. I did not even know what Blogs were! They said that they would sue me and file an injunction, if I dared to publish any other libelous, defamatory material about them.

On Feb. 10/06, Martin Woock and Kim Adams personally appeared, pounding at my door and I could also hear Woock yelling. They had a notice of eviction. They intended to evict me, unless I immediately complied with their threats and bullying, and removed the blog. I refused. NUMBER ONE, it did not contravene PIPEDA, as they alleged. NUMBER TWO, their demand violated my right to freedom of speech, as guaranteed to me by the Constitution of Canada under the Canadian Charter of Freedoms and Rights. I was, and to this day, remain steadfast in my conviction.

AM I THE ONLY ONE HERE, WHO SEES A PATTERN OF UNSUBSTANTIATED ALLEGATIONS, UNTRUTHS, LIBEL AND DEFAMATION AGAINST ME BY THE LANDLORD EMERGING? THE LANDLORD IS DOING EXACTLY WHAT THEY ARE FALSELY ACCUSING ME OF DOING.

When I did not comply, on Feb. 23/06, both Woock and Adams again appeared, pounding hard enough on my door "to wake the dead" as they did on the 10th, to personally hand-deliver the ORHT Notice of Hearing, the next official step in eviction.

You should know, that I have been a tenant here since August, 1994. My rent has always been paid, in full and on time. I HAVE THE RENT RECEIPTS TO PROVE IT, PRINTED AT THEIR RENTAL OFFICE AND MAILED TO ME. There have been no complaints filed against me. I am a quiet, considerate tenant WHO did not AND DO NOT discuss my online or other activity, with other tenants. In fact, few tenants in this 65 unit building even knew me, and that includes some other long-time tenants like me. I pretty much keep to myself.

At the hearing, the landlord tried to say that my blog was making other tenants feel uncomfortable. No one knew about it or how to find it. My lawyer countered by asking whether the property value had deflated or whether tenants have moved out because of my blog, resulting in lost income for the landlord. The landlord denied.

My lawyer mentioned their lawyer, Bayne, and his credentials. He asked why the landlord had not carried out their threat, of civil litigation and filing an injunction against this site, as stated in the Dec. 8, 2004 letter to me. The landlord's agents replied that he had been unavailable. Mr. Done then simply stated the obvious fact, that their lawyer had been unavailable for 1 1/2 years to file this litigation against me.

Mr. Done then stated that the ORHT was not the proper forum for such a proceeding, and that the landlord was trying to utilize this forum, because it was a much cheaper process, adding that civil litigation would be very expensive. More details were published, by the very experienced and extremely capable, unbiased Mr. Ian Elliot of The Kingston Whig Standard, in the March 16th edition, the following day. Mr. Elliot attended the entire hearing and conducted interviews, prior to submitting his article for publication. It, like the hearing, is a matter of public record.

I wish to acknowledge and offer heartfelt appreciation for everyone who attended and/or offered support in every conceivable way. Not only did Mr. Elliot attend the entire hearing (about one hour), he like the rest of us had to wait over 3 hours for the hearing to begin. It was held as the last for the day. Mr. Steve Ladurantaye, City Editor at The Kingston Whig Standard, who assigned the story to Mr. Elliot in the first place. No doubt he receives countless volumes of mail and calls, from people with suggestions for articles and/or desperately seeking help as I was. He saw merit in the story, from the cyber-law perspective. Mr. Done, I am sure like everyone else, had other important cases to work on. Robyn Hartley and Paul Quick with KCAP and other KCAP reps were there. For well over a year, Robyn has always been there for me, day or night, to try to help me get through these problems with the landlord and other issues. I sometimes say to others that, were it not for this amazing young lady, I probably would have jumped off a bridge! An obvious exaggeration on my part, but her support has always been selflessly offered. Bill Florence is a Queen's University Faculty of Law student, who has been working with Mr. Done, and another who worked tirelessly on the case. He accompanied Mr. Done, as co-chair at the hearing. Not in attendance, but of equal importance, were the whole staff at the Kingston Community Legal Clinic, including Kimberley Lonsdale. Everyone had spent countless hours researching and preparing for this case. How can they be thanked properly for everything they did for me.

There was yet another amazing gentleman, who had read the original article in the Feb. 28th edition of the Whig Standard, and attended just to offer his support as a concerned citizen. Is that not totally amazing? This kind soul was a total stranger to me. At the end of the hearing he was so kind when he approached and comforted me. He offered a radiant smile, touched my arm and said simply that at least I had another month (the adjudicator stated it could take a month for him to perform research and make a final decision). Not even in Kingston, I had been in touch with Mr. Josh Paterson, of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association in Toronto. Unfortunately, by the time they found out about the case, it was too late to have someone attend, but Mr. Paterson was supportive and helpful. He was in contact with Mr. Done on numerous occasions, prior to and since the hearing, to offer his assistance in every way possible. Then there is Bob Levitt, at the Ontario Tenants Association in Toronto. He communicated with me via e-mail and did everything he could to help. Most of these people, had not even met me prior to this "mess" and some have still not met me, yet they pitched in and did everything in their power to assist me.

I did not forget my family. My sister, her husband, two sons, and a niece-in-law. They were there for me, especially when I needed them the most, in the darkest hours.

Just to say thanks somehow seems so minor, compared to what I have received. I hope I have not forgotten anyone. If I have, I will add it later. Of course, I cannot forget the people who have read the blog, and left supportive comments. Enough Mushy Stuff!!!

You will see, from the ORHT Official Order, issued on March 21, 2006 (transcribed in verbatim below) that the landlord did not provide any evidence at the hearing. I FIND THIS FACT TO BE PARTICULARLY IRONIC. YOU SEE, THE LANDLORD ALLEGED THAT I MADE UNFOUNDED AND UNSUBSTANTIATED LIBELOUS AND DEFAMATORY ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THEM AND EMPLOYEES/FORMER EMPLOYEES, ON BOTH MY PERSONAL WEB PAGE AT LYCOS AND THIS BLOG (WHICH THEY ALLEGE THEY JUST FOUND ON MARCH 3RD - I KNOW THEY HAD TO ACTIVELY SEARCH FOR IT, BECAUSE MANY HAVE TOLD ME THAT THEY CANNOT FIND IT). YET, AND HERE IS THE BEST PART, IT IS THE LANDLORD AND THEIR AGENTS WHO MADE THE UNFOUNDED AND UNSUBSTANTIATED ALLEGATIONS AGAINST ME. THEY USED THESE ALLEGATIONS TO PUT ME THROUGH HELL WITH THIS ATTEMPTED EVICTION AND MANY OTHER MATTERS (details will follow eventually, in subsequent posts, including how I had to file 3 no-heat complaints to get them to finally fix my living room rad, that produced no heat for most of Feb. and half of March/06). They did not know that I had the entire recording of the January 2, 2001 ORHT Hearing, which I purchased directly from the ORHT. ORHT sent the tapes to me by Purolator Courier in 2001.

Even since this hearing, the landlord to this day, continues to harass and intimidate me. I shall post all of those details in a separate posting, at a later date. But I will provide this one example today. When I received the notice of the hearing on Feb. 23rd, it stated that the landlord wanted me out by Mar. 2nd. Now, I surmise that they timed that, in an attempt to get an extra month's rent out of me, since they were convinced they would obtain an order against me on March 15th..

It was stated that they received the last month's rent in July, 1994. Do you follow, they had my cheque for March 1st already at their office. They had my last month's rent on deposit. NOW, they were also asking for a per diem rate (rent divided by the days in the month) for each day I remained in the apartment between March 2/06 and the hearing, then the same rate for each day I was there after the ORHT order they were sure they would obtain against me, until the Sheriff came and physically removed me from the premises, if I had not already left.

DOES ANYONE ELSE SEE SOMETHING WRONG WITH THE FACT THAT THE LANDLORD WAS TRYING TO GET A MINIMUM OF 2 1/2 MONTH'S RENT FROM ME FOR THE MONTH OF MARCH, 2006??? DOES ANYONE ELSE SEE SOMETHING WRONG WITH THE FACT THAT THE ONTARIO RENTAL HOUSING TRIBUNAL IS ALLOWING THIS???

On Feb. 24th, I went to the ORHT office and filed my dispute. I then rushed to my bank and issued a Stop Payment Order against the cheque, at a cost of $12 to me. A week prior to the hearing, the landlord sent a letter to me (I will put it in the next post) demanding that I pay my March rent by certified cheque, money order, etc. and that I submit a $20 Admin. Fee for the Stop Payment order. This was sent to me by Kim Adams.

Just days prior to the hearing, I met with Mr. Done at the Kingston Community Legal Clinic. So, I had no legal representation at the time. Prior to the hearing, I presented the letter (dated March 7th) to Mr. Done. He spoke with Adams and Woock. When he returned to me, he told me to give them the rent cheque for the month, but asked me to have them provide proof of the outrageous Admin. Fee. I did not get to speak with them, even though I had my cheque book with me and the rent was in my account. When I got home, I got an envelope and went back out to mail the cheque.

Instead of the proper receipt I requested, I got a photocopy of my cheque from Adams. It was accompanied by a letter from Adams dated March 20th, in which she alleged that my cheque was NSF, not returned because of a stop payment. She quotes section 29 from the Tenant Protection Act, that they may charge $20.00 for an NSF.

On April 1st, I sent an e-mail to Homestead, with a copy to my lawyer, advising that I had contacted their bank. The lady at the bank advised me that they issue NO ADMINISTRATION FEE AGAINST ANY CLIENT, ON PERSONAL OR COMMERCIAL ACCOUNTS, WHEN THEY DEPOSIT A CHEQUE AGAINST WHICH A STOP PAYMENT ORDER HAS BEEN ISSUED. THEY DO CHARGE $35.00 IF A CHEQUE IS RETURNED NSF. I also contacted Bank of Montreal, downtown, to ensure that this policy is, well, universal. It was.

HERE IS JUST ONE EXAMPLE OF THE CONTINUING HARASSMENT, PERPETRATED AGAINST ME BY THE LANDLORD. SO MUCH MORE IRONIC, BECAUSE AT THE HEARING, WOOCK AND ADAMS REPEATEDLY LAMENTED THAT IT WAS I WHO WAS HARASSING THEM, OTHER TENANTS, AND EVERYONE EMPLOYED BY THEM, ASSOCIATED WITH THEM IN ANY WAY, EVER INVOLVED WITH ANY OF THEIR HOLDINGS, WITH MY BLOG. On Friday, April 7th, the landlord had the building super slip an invoice under my door DEMANDING THE $20.00 ADMIN. FEE, WHICH ADAMS AND WOOCK, AND NO DOUBT THE VERY EXTREMELY RICH MANSION-LIVING SMITHS, FEEL THEY JUSTLY DESERVE. I did not realize the envelope was under the door until after business hours, and could have been placed there very shortly before I found it. It had slipped under the Welcome mat, that I keep in front of the door.

Late yesterday morning (April 10th), I telephoned the toll-free number at ORHT. I explained every step, from the 1st notice to the hearing, and what is now happening. THE LADY AT ORHT TOLD ME THAT THE LANDLORD CANNOT USE ANY SECTION OF THE TPA, TO FORCE ME TO PAY AN ADMIN. FEE, FOR A STOP PAYMENT ORDER. THE CLAUSE STRICTLY REFERS TO AN NSF ADMIN. FEE. YET, the landlord persists in this harassment.

I IMMEDIATELY TELEPHONED THE OFFICE AND ASKED TO SPEAK WITH CHRIS ALWARD IN ACCTS. REC. SHE WAS AT LUNCH AND I LEFT THE MESSAGE ON HER VOICE MAIL. I RELAYED THE DETAILED DISCUSSION WITH ORHT. I ALSO TOLD HER THAT SHE COULD CALL ME OR THE ORHT FOR CONFIRMATION, LEAVING MY PHONE NUMBER EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVE IT. I NEVER DID GET A CALL. I SHALL POST IT, IF (AND I AM CONVINCED THAT THEY WILL CONTINUE TO ATTEMPT TO EXTORT THIS $20.00 FEE FROM ME) AND WHEN I RECEIVE FURTHER CORRESPONDENCE FROM THE OFFICE ABOUT IT.

IT WOULD NOT SURPRISE ME, IF THEY WILL TRY TO USE THIS ATTEMPT, TO JUSTIFY EXTORTING EVEN MORE MONEY THAN THEY ARE LEGALLY ALLOWED, BY TRYING TO ISSUE YET ANOTHER EVICTION NOTICE AGAINST ME AND/OR MAYBE HITTING ME WITH AN INVOICE FOR INTEREST. Imagine that, if it happens, interest on monies to which they are not legally allowed to demand in the first place! How sadly ironic. WATCH AND SEE!!!! I am not paranoid. I have the paperwork to prove it. Personally, I perceive this as just another act of retaliation and harassment against me, on the part of the landlord. I shall put all of the related correspondences I have mentioned, in a separate post, as stated above.

As of today (Tuesday, April 11, 2006), I have transcribed approximately 1/2 of the original Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal actual recording of the January 2, 2001 hearing mentioned above, in a separate post. If you read it, you will see that already, the claims in my blog and the previous personal web page, have been substantiated. The transcription is a tedious task, because I do not have a proper dictation machine.

FINALLY, THE STAR OF THIS POST:

HERE IS THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE ACTUAL ORDER FROM THE MARCH 15, 2006 ORHT HEARING, AT WHICH THE LANDLORD TRIED TO EVICT ME, AFTER THEIR REPEATED ATTEMPTS AT BULLYING AND
HARASSING ME FAILED TO PRODUCE THE RESULTS THEY DEMANDED (MY DELETION OF THIS BLOG).:
____________________________________________________________________________________

(Please note: I do not have a scanner. I have transcribed the actual order, in verbatim, as it was issued to me by the ORHT on March 21, 2006.)

Order under Section 69 Tenant Protection Act, 1997

RE: File Number EAL-55359

In the Matter of 501, 154 Parkway Street, Kingston, ON K7M 3E7

Between: Homestead Land Holdings Limited and S____ E. D___

Homestead Land Holdings Limited (the 'Landlord') applied for an order to terminate the tenancy and evict S____ E. D___ (the 'Tenant') because the Tenant or her guest or another occupant of the rental unit has substantially interfered with the reasonable enjoyment of the residential complex by the landlord or other tenants or has interfered with another lawful right, privilege or interest of the Landlord or other tenants. The Landlord also claimed compensation for each day the Tenant remained in the unit after the termination date.

This application was heard in Kingston on March 15, 2006.

The Landlord represented by Kim Adams and Martin Woock and the Tenant represented by John Done attended the hearing.


The order is as follows:

It is determined that:

The Landlord alleges that the Tenant continues to communicate unfounded accusations concerning the Landlord and its former employees by posting such details on a public internet web site.

At the hearing, the Landlord's agent presented no evidence that the web site actually exists or if it does exist, any evidence that the Tenant has posted unfounded accusations regarding the Landlord or its employees.

It is the applicant's responsibility to prove its case. I find that the Landlord has failed to discharge that responsibility.

It is ordered that:

The application is dismissed.

March 21, 2006 Brian McKee
Date Issued Member, Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal

Eastern Region, 4th Floor, 255 Albert Street, Ottawa, ON K1P 6A9

If you have any questions about this order, call 416-645-8080 or toll free at 1-888-332-3234.

END OF THE ORHT ORDER

ORHT Hearing Transcript: January 2, 2001; File EAT-02346

ONTARIO RENTAL HOUSING TRIBUNAL TRANSCRIPT

FILE NO.: EAT-02346
ADDRESS: 501 – 154 Parkway, Kingston, ON K7M 3E7
LANDLORD: Homestead Land Holdings Limited
TENANT: Sarah E. Dawe
LANDLORD AGENT: Paul Fudge, Bailiff
ADJUDICATOR: Ian MacInnis
HEARING DATE: January 2, 2001. Form T2 Application About Tenant Rights (1) The landlord, the landlord’s agent or the superintendent entered my unit illegally.

THE HEARING BEGINS ON SIDE 2 OF TAPE 1 (approximately 22 minutes into that 30 minute side of the cassette):

MACINNIS:
Okay, we are dealing with File EAT-02346, Homestead Land Holdings and Sarah Dawe. Do you want to come up and have a seat at the tables please?

FUDGE:
I have one preliminary matter. The property manager for this building is out of the country until next week. There was a request made to the applicant for an adjournment and that was denied. I have an Affidavit from Cheryl Lambert, the property manager. I am prepared to go ahead with the hearing today under the provision that if evidence of the property manager becomes important that it be adjourned to a later date for the purpose of the property manager to give her evidence.

MACINNIS:
Do you know what her evidence would be or would you rather reserve it?

FUDGE:
I have no problem at all.

MACINNIS:
Now this is the property manager as opposed to Elsie Davis the superintendent?

FUDGE:
That is correct. Here is another sworn, here is a sworn copy. There is three incidents I think that mainly that the tenant is bringing before the tribunal, one being in the August/September which Cheryl Lambert was present for, the other one Mrs. Davis.

DAWE:
That’s correct.

MACINNIS:
I’ll give you a minute to read that.

DAWE:
Okay.

MACINNIS:
Will the evidence of Ms. Davis, will it corroborate this?

FUDGE:
Yes I think she can sir.

MACINNIS:
Because my understanding of reading the application is that Ms. Davis was there or involved in just about every situation described. Okay. Alright, so Ms. Dawe what Mr. Fudge is saying is that we go ahead with the hearing today.

DAWE:
Well, I have only read part of the first page of this Affidavit and I have problems with it.

MACINNIS:
Well, you don’t have to give me an assessment of it right now. I’ll tell you how this works. For the time being I am just setting that aside okay. All I asked Mr. Fudge to do is give me a bit of an outline of what the evidence would be. As of right now I haven’t accepted this as tendered evidence okay? Instead I’ll hand that back.

FUDGE:
Certain. Thanks.

MACINNIS:
Instead what Mr. Fudge is saying is this. Let’s hear from the witnesses who are here.

DAWE:
Yeah.

MACINNIS:
Okay and if he believes at the end of all of the evidence that he still needs this lady to give evidence

DAWE:
To attend because she was at the first incident.

MACINNIS:
Yeah exactly. To attend, then, he may want to adjourn for that purpose. She is out of the country?

FUDGE:
She is. She is in France.

MACINNIS:
Yeah, it would be pretty hard to bring someone when they are that far away. In which case we would consider an adjournment to hear from one more witness then. Cheryl

FUDGE:
Lambert.

MACINNIS:
Lambert. Okay. There may not be a necessity for that. It’s nice if we could wrap it all up today.

DAWE:
Well, that’s why I initially told Cheryl on the 20th, I had spoken with her on the 19th when she asked me for a postponement. I denied it because I said “I want to get this over with”.

MACINNIS:
Yeah, but if her evidence ends up being critical where you know I hear your evidence, I hear their evidence and I am going oh, boy this is you know getting contradictory evidence, if that’s the case I am just guessing right now you know what I mean? But if in the end I think well I really should hear from her, you know subject to your cross-examining of her.

DAWE:
Uh huh

MACINNIS:
You know. I mean that’s the one thing. I mean an Affidavit is okay but it sure would be a whole lot better if the person was here.

DAWE:
Yeah.

MACINNIS:
You can ask her some questions you know?

DAWE:
Yeah.

MACINNIS:
Alright?

DAWE:
Uh huh.

MACINNIS:
Alright, so that’s the situation. So let’s determine after when I hear all of the witnesses whether or not the evidence of Cheryl Lambert is going to be required. Okay and if not then we will get on with it today.

DAWE:
Actually, with respect to Cheryl, I had spoken with her on December 20th , the day on which she accepted the Notice of Hearing .

MACINNIS:
Right.

DAWE:
I passed it along to Mrs. Davis and she, Ms. Lambert, collected it. And then I talked to her again on the 21st

MACINNIS:
Right.

DAWE:
Now I did come to, I filed my initial application on the 19th and I did return to the tribunal office on the 21st and I had all of this with me. I spoke with the ladies in the office at the time and one of them called a superior, and we couldn’t determine whether an amendment would be required to my initial application or if, one lady said that the adjudicator just may accept this. But since this primarily involves conversations between Cheryl and myself, I don’t know if it would even be fair to accept it with her being present.

MACINNIS:
Well the other thing is, have you given any notice to the landlord that you were thinking of amending the application?

DAWE:
No.

MACINNIS:
Given anything to? Well see I would require that in any event.

DAWE:
Yeah.

MACINNIS:
You know it is pretty hard on a party to defend when if they are just told on the day of the hearing that by the way there are six other things I want to talk about.

DAWE:
Yeah we weren’t even sure whether an amendment would be, ah the lady that I spoke with said that maybe one adjudicator would you know deem it necessary to file an amendment where another one might not, that we couldn’t predict it until we actually came to the hearing.

MACINNIS:
Well, I would like to think that regardless of who the adjudicator is, the adjudicator of the day whether it is me or anyone else would at the very least say I want disclosure. I want both sides and the other side to know what it is all about so that they can properly prepare. No trial by ambush you know where you can walk in and somebody is taken by surprise. I wouldn’t allow that and your application filed on the 19th deals with illegal entry. Now is this more illegal entry allegation or is this new stuff?

DAWE:
There is the majority of the conversations between Cheryl and myself about trying to serve the application on one part and just more specific details that she and I both discussed regarding the initial three incidents.

MACINNIS:
Okay but it all pertains to the allegation that there were illegal entries.

DAWE:
Uh huh.

MACINNIS:
Okay well.

DAWE:
And, uh.

MACINNIS:
Well is there anything like? Like for example on the initial form that you completed, box number one refers to illegal entry and there are four other allegations that you could check off.

DAWE:
Uh huh.

MACINNIS:
Which you did on the 19th of February.

DAWE:
Uh huh.

MACINNIS:
Are you suggesting that any of these other allegations should be added or are they all still,

DAWE:
No.

MACINNIS:
Or are they all still related?

DAWE:
It is all still related to the same allegation and,

MACINNIS:
Well then I don’t think there would be even a need for

DAWE:
That’s what I’ve been,

MACINNIS:
an amendment of illegal entry on certain dates and you can give your evidence and if your conversations with Cheryl Lambert are relevant

DAWE:
Uh huh.

MACINNIS:
then Mr. Fudge can cross-examine you on them or if he feels that at the end of the day that he needs Cheryl Lambert here to refute some of this then he’ll have to say so.

DAWE:
Well I do have a carbon copy if he does have questions about them.

MACINNIS:
But these are your notes,

DAWE:
Yeah

MACINNIS:
Apparently that you have made when you have had conversations with Cheryl Lambert.

DAWE:
Yes.

MACINNIS:
Well you can just give them into your evidence but they have to be relevant to the case. Cheryl Lambert is the property manager

DAWE:
Yeah.

MACINNIS:
so in effect she would be a party, correct, as an agent for the landlord. So she can quote Cheryl Lambert. Can she not?

FUDGE:
Yes she can quote her subject to what I have already asked that we have a,

MACINNIS:
Oh yeah. Oh yeah but I mean in terms of it is not hearsay if she quotes Cheryl Lambert. Because Cheryl Lambert is the agent acting on behalf of the landlord therefore she is the landlord and therefore a party. Okay?

FUDGE:
Well no she is not named as such.

MACINNIS:
No I know but it was not Brit Smith who came in.

END OF SIDE 2, TAPE 1


BEGINNING OF TAPE 2, SIDE 1:

DAWE:
I was not sure who I would have to file against, whether it would be Homestead, whether it would be Cheryl, whether it would be the superintendent.

MACINNIS:
Your landlord is Homestead Land Holdings, okay?

DAWE:
That’s why I,

MACINNIS:
Cheryl Lambert and Ms. Davis are agents of the landlord, okay?

DAWE:
Uh huh.

MACINNIS:
So whatever they do, so too does the landlord.

DAWE:
Yeah.

MACINNIS:
Do you follow me?

DAWE:
Yeah.

MACINNIS:
So, are we ready to give evidence?

FUDGE:
Yeah.

MACINNIS:
Okay, Ms. Dawe. Do you swear to tell the truth in these proceedings?

DAWE:
Yes I do.

MACINNIS:
Alright. How long have you lived there?

DAWE:
Since August of 1994.

MACINNIS:
You have been there a long time.

DAWE:
I think it is safe to say that.

MACINNIS:
Yeah.

DAWE:
It is the longest time I have ever lived in one apartment.

MACINNIS:
Okay then, and these difficulties with respect to the allegations of illegal entry started this past summer.

DAWE:
Uh huh.

MACINNIS:
Okay.

DAWE:
Now, with the first time that Cheryl was in attendance, which was the only time of the three incidents that I noted. It was approximately three weeks before that, that the superintendent actually came to my apartment and let me know that, well she initially asked me whether there had been any water leakage in my apartment. I didn’t know what she was talking about at first and she had a fellow with a beard, but it wasn’t you. I don’t think it was you.

THERRIEN:
No

DAWE:
There was somebody else who was with her at the time and she said that he had come in to determine whether caulking would be needed, that there was water leakage in the apartment directly beneath mine.

MACINNIS:
Okay let’s back up.

DAWE:
And it was near my,

MACINNINS:
Let’s back up. Ms. Davis and somebody else arrived at your door.

DAWE:
Uh huh.

MACINNIS:
They knocked on your door,

DAWE:
Yeah.

MACINNIS:
and they said something about a potential water leak that they would like to investigate

DAWE:
Uh huh.

MACINNIS:
and they wanted to determine whether or not some caulking might be necessary.

DAWE:
Uh huh.

MACINNIS:
You let them in?

DAWE:
Uh huh.

MACINNIS:
Okay. When they finished that, what happened?

DAWE:
Well, when they came in that day. The superintendent had left a note on my door and I called her so, I think it was probably the same day that I called her back, that she and this other gentleman showed up at the apartment. So, I was, you know, waiting for them.

MACINNIS:
You let them in?

DAWE:
Oh yeah.

MACINNIS:
Okay, so let’s get on with the times that you say they entered and you didn’t give them permission.

DAWE:
Okay. The day that they did enter, it was at the end of the week, and it was my understanding,

MACINNIS:
This summer?

DAWE:
Uh huh. And it was my understanding that, the following Monday or Tuesday, a company, somebody would be coming in to repair siding on the outside of the building, which is where they thought the leak was coming through and the superintendent advised me that the people who came to restore the siding, would not have to come into the apartment. That would be done outside the building, but that someone may have to come in to do some caulking. It was about three weeks later, I hadn’t heard anything. I assumed that the problem had been taken care of. So, it was about three weeks later that Cheryl Lambert actually showed up at the apartment with the superintendent, and I didn’t hear a knock at the door, but I did hear the key, the deadbolt, opening. So I went to the door and I was outraged. I said you know “What the hell” and a few other words “do you think you are doing? Why are you coming into the apartment? There is no emergency.

MACINNIS:
They hadn’t entered?

DAWE:
They hadn’t entered. No. But there was only,

MACINNIS:
But, they did unlock the deadbolt?

DAWE:
Yes, the only reason why they hadn’t entered is because there is another lock on my door, which doesn’t use a key. It only locks and unlocks from the inside. There is no chain lock. I don’t even know what kind of lock this is called, but there is a hole drilled into the frame of the door and the bolt actually slides right in there, as though it were like another deadbolt. That is how I perceive it, but I am not a

MACINNIS:
Can you open the door a little bit when that engages?

DAWE:
No

MACINNIS:
Okay. So, so even if you unlocked the regular deadbolt, the fact that you have got this locked inside prevents you from opening the door whatsoever.

DAWE:
Uh huh.

MACINNIS:
It won’t even open a little bit. It is just like two deadbolts.

DAWE
Yeah.

MACINNIS:
Except that you have a key to one.

DAWE:
Uh huh. And there is no key. This other lock, I can’t lock it when I leave the apartment.

MACINNIS:
No. No, because it only locks on the inside. Okay, go ahead.

DAWE:
Anyway, we went off on a little tangent.

MACINNIS:
Well, you were outraged. You said a few choice words.

DAWE:
Oh, yeah. Yeah.

MACINNIS:
Would you like to explain it?

DAWE:
Well, Cheryl pulled me aside and she said that she thought that I had given permission to the superintendent. I said no. I give no one carte blanche permission, I never used carte blanche at the time, but I give no one carte blanche permission to come into my apartment at any time. I told her it was my understanding that the problem had been fixed. I mean, like I said, it had been three weeks before.

MACINNIS:
Who else was there at the door?

DAWE:
There was a fellow, who did come in and do the caulking.

MACINNIS:
You heard somebody unlocking the deadbolt

DAWE:
Uh huh.

MACINNIS:
And because of the internal lock, they couldn’t get it.

DAWE:
Uh huh.

MACINNIS:
You went to open the door and who was standing at the door?

DAWE:
I saw Cheryl Lambert. Well, I didn’t know it was Cheryl Lambert. I just saw a female, I saw a male, and I saw the superintendent.

MACINNIS:
Elsie Davis?

DAWE:
She was the only one who I recognized.

MACINNIS:
Okay. And did they explain to you, why they were coming in?

DAWE:
For the first few seconds, nobody else got a chance to speak but me, to be frank.

MACINNIS:
But ultimately, did they explain why they were at the door?

DAWE:
They said that it was for the caulking.

MACINNIS:
So, did you let them in?

DAWE:
Oh yeah. Yeah. I never denied access.

MACINNIS:
So, after you had a few choice words, you let them in to do the caulking.

DAWE:
Uh huh. And while the fellow was doing that, I believe the superintendent was with him, Cheryl Lambert pulled me aside and she said that she thought that they had permission, at which time I said that I never gave permission. When the superintendent was here the three weeks before, I acknowledged the fact that she would have to come back. I expected, and I thought it was reasonable to expect, that I would get notice before she would have to come back.

MACINNIS:
Right. Then what happened?

DAWE:
Well, in either case I was still enraged because of the fact that my lock had been opened, that I hadn’t given permission for this, that I just wasn’t expecting it, and Cheryl promised that that would n’t happen again. Okay, that is all from that day, I think.

MACINNIS:
Okay.

DAWE:
Then from the second day, which was the 8th of December, I wasn’t aware of any knock at the door. I was in bed. It was sometime, I think, between 9:00 and 9:30 in the morning, that I heard a key turning in my lock. That’s what awakened me. By the time I got up and went to the door, there was nobody there. Then, the following week on the 14th , that was when I did go to the door. It was in the early afternoon. The superintendent had turned the key in the lock again. Instead of going to the door enraged, like I did on the first occasion, I went to the door. I asked her what she wanted. She told me that she had to check the radiators in the apartment. I told her to go ahead and check them. I assumed that she had to check all of them, but she told me that she only had to check the one in my living room.

MACINNIS:
So, you let her in, to check the radiator.

DAWE:
Uh huh. And I didn’t blast her or become enraged that day. I thought “I am just going to do something, because there have been three incidents.”. I thought that, because the property manager, who is a superior to the superintendent, was in attendance on the day of the first incident, that maybe the superintendent thought that her property manager condoned that. You know that, she was in a sense, giving her a message that she could go ahead and use someone’s key, without their permission.

MACINNIS:
That’s speculating. Just give me the evidence. Give me the facts. We dealt with the first incident, back in the summer. Then, On December 8th you weren’t aware of a knock at the door, but between 9:00 and 9:30 a.m. you heard somebody discharging or opening the lock. You went there, but no one was there. December 14th , early in the afternoon, the superintendent was turning the key in the deadbolt. You went to the door. The superintendent was there. That would be Ms. Davis, and she explained that she needed to check the radiator in the living room. Is that right?

DAWE:
Yeah.

MACINNIS:
Good. Is that the end of that incident?

DAWE:
When she came in on the 14th, that was when she advised me that she had been there the week before.

MACINNIS:
Well, she told you that she had been there the week before?

DAWE:
Uh huh.

MACINNIS:
On the 8th?

DAWE:
Because I hadn’t seen her, I had no proof that it was she who actually tried to open the door on the 8th or had turned the lock.

MACINNIS:
Did you question her about that?

DAWE:
I don’t recall questioning her, at that point. Not in detail. I was.

MACINNIS:


I SHALL PUBLISH THE TRANSCRIPTION OF THE HEARING TAPES, AS IT EACH SECTION IS COMPLETED.

Homestead Land Holdings Ltd. Trying to Evict Ontario Tenant Because of Blog.: Illegal Entry & Other "Illegal" Acts

.
UPDATE: Mar. 14, 2006. I have listened to the tapes that were provided to me, by the ORHT on Jan. 14, 2001. They numbered them Tapes 1 and 2. Until several days ago, I thought that ORHT only forwarded the beginning of my Jan. 2, 2001 hearing, because at the tribunal my hearing was the last of the day, on Tapes 2 and 3. Why did they not reply to my letter or send a note to explain that they had renumbered the tapes? When I initially received them, I listened to the first tape and there other hearings on side one. I listened to over half of side 2 and could find nothing. I rewound the second tape, finding another hearing. Since I knew that mine was the final hearing that day, well I was very disappointed.

Long story a little shorter, when I listened to both tapes in their entirety, WOW, was I surprised to find that they had sent the recording of the entire hearing. My hearing actually began near the end of Side 2 on Tape 1. I WILL TRANSCRIBE THIS HEARING AND LIST IT AS A SEPARATE BLOG ENTRY UNDER THE TITLE: "ORHT Hearing Transcript: January 2, 2001; File EAT-02346"

UPDATE: Feb. 27, 2006. I spoke on the telephone today, with the Kingston Whig Standard reporter, Mr. Ian Elliot, who interviewed me on the 23rd. The article, which he is writing and for which I was photographed on the 26th, may be printed in the Tues., Feb. 28 edition of the newspaper. Homestead Land Holdings Limited has refused requests for an interview.

UPDATE: Feb. 23, 2006: Martin Woock, area manager of the Kingston Office of Ontario's Homestead Land Holdings Ltd., and his assistant Kim Adams, personally hand-delivered an eviction notice to me at about 10:00 a.m. today. I have never been able to reach him on the phone, but two times now (today and Feb. 10th), he has personally hand-delivered Eviction notices to me, each time slipping them under the door. This is a prime example of the extent to which Homestead is willing to go, to HARASS, INTIMIDATE AND get rid of me. WHAT IS THE REASON, THAT THEY ARE CITING ON THE EVICTION NOTICE, FOR THE EVICTION OF A MIDDLE-AGED WIDOWED FEMALE TENANT, WHO LIVES ALONE WITH HER TWO AGING KITTY CATS, AND WHO IS ON A FIXED GOVERNMENT OF ONTARIO DISABILITY INCOME? THIS BLOG.

Yes, they are stating that this blog is the reason they have for evicting me. I have lived here since August of 1994. There have never been any complaints against me, not even a solitary noise complaint!

It is filed under the ORHT # EAL-55359. The hearing is to be held at the Royal Canadian Legion, 734 Montreal Street, Kingston, on March 15, 2006 at 10:00 a.m.

UPDATE: Feb. 23, 2006: I was interviewed in my apartment today, by Mr. Ian Elliot, reporter at the Kingston Whig Standard. I had contacted members of the media, locally and in Ontario, regarding the eviction notice.

UPDATE: Feb. 20, 2006: P.I.P.E.D.A. DOES NOT APPLY TO BLOGS OR PERSONAL SITES!

UPDATE: Feb. 16, 2006: Directly beneath my 2 updates on Feb. 10, 2006 (below), I am installing verbatim information, which I am transcribing directly from two documents. I should have done this a long time ago. One is the Affidavit that Cheryl Lambert provided to the ORHT Hearing on Jan. 2, 2001. The other is the order I received from Ian MacInnis, dated Jan. 5, 2001.

UPDATE: Feb. 13, 2006: I usually place my updates at the end of my blog, but this is rather crucial, involving a violation of my constitutional right to Freedom of Speech as provided by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, so I decided to install it at the beginning instead. My landlord admitted to being responsible for my original website (kingstonkittens.tripod.com) being shut down. I quote in verbatim from their Feb. 10, 2006 Notice to Terminate a Tenancy Early (see all information from that document below in my Feb. 10 update): "THE WEBSITE WAS REMOVED BY THE SERVICE PROVIDER LYCOS INC. WITH INTERVENTION BY THE LANDLORD.........AND CONTRAVENED THE P.I.P.E.D.A ACT.". I telephoned the Government of Canada Privacy Commissioner on Feb. 10. She advised me that P.I.P.E.D.A. does not regulate blogs/personal sites, which is why I could find no information pertinent to my case, when I read the Act online. It regulates websites of organizations, corporations, commercial sites, etc. If you wish to view the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (P.I.P.E.D.A.), please visit the Privacy Commissioner's site at www.priv.com.gc.ca.

Also of great importance, Section 2, Fundamental Freedoms under the "Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms", I quote in verbatim: "2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: (a) freedom of conscience and religion; (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and (d) freedom of association. Freedom of Speech is also protected under: "Universal Declaration of Human Rights (article 19) " and "International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (article 19)".

At present, I am in communication with several members of the media and an Ontario activist group, regarding my personal dilemma, that of being harassed, intimidated and "bullied" by my landlord. I shall provide an update, as soon as it is feasible.

THIS WAS THE ORIGINAL BEGINNING OF MY BLOG (now with some updates): WARNING TO RENTERS:

If you rent, or are seeking to rent, an apartment in Ontario, BEWARE of Homestead Land Holdings Limited (I shall refer to them as Homestead). They are a very large business (in 2002 net worth over $2,000,000,000, that's right $2 billion), which is probably why they get away with anything and everything. The company was founded by a lawyer (Britton Smith, QC), so if you wish to file a civil law suit or criminal charges against them, good luck. Mr. Smith retired, but his son Britton Jr. (another lawyer) is "running the show", so to speak. It is impossible to find a lawyer who would oppose them. If anyone has found a lawyer or politician who would dare to oppose them, please let me know, especially if you won!

They are supporters of many politicians, so you won't get help there. MPP for Kingston and the Islands, John Gerretsen is a personal friend of Britton Smith (possibly both Sr. and Jr.). In his third term as MPP for the riding of Kingston and the Islands, Premier McGuinty appointed him as Minister for Municipal Affairs and Housing and responsible for Seniors, in October of 2003. I filed a complaint against Homestead with the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal, the Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the local MPP, Gerretsen (how naive was I???), The Ombudsman's office, the Kingston Legal Aid Clinic (repeatedly said they were too busy to help, but I can only surmise about the real reason why they refused to help), and even two Premiers of Ontario from two political parties (Eaves and McGuinty, I'll get into that later), to no avail. I have actually filed numerous written complaints with MPP Gerretsen (KINGSTON LAWYER), against Homestead. I filed written complaints with my city councillor, George Stoparczyk (Trillium District 6, Kingston)in 2005. I even filed a complaint with the federal MP, Peter Milliken, but he did not bother to reply. Mr. Milliken (KINGSTON LAWYER)was born in Kingston and is serving his 5th term as MP for the riding of Kingston and the Islands, and has been Speaker of the House of Commons since 2004.

Homestead Land Holdings Ltd. (founded and owned by KINGSTON LAWYERS) have many real estate holdings (ie. apartment buildings, nearly 50 in Kingston alone) in Ontario, with offices in Kingston, Ottawa, Toronto, London, Hamilton (with buildings in Brantford, Guelph, Kitchener and St. Catharines being administered by the Hamilton office). They also have holdings in Sarnia, and maybe an office there as well. As of today, Feb. 27, 2006, they have almost 50 apartment buildings in Kingston alone, with plans for more.

Then there is the HUGE development on Block "D" in Downtown Kingston, on the waterfront of Lake Ontario, that is worth hundreds of millions of dollars, not to mention millions in municipal tax breaks, that Homestead is developing RIGHT NOW. There was a photo of the site in a January 31, 2006 edition of Kingston This Week. I "Googled" "Homestead Land Holding and Block D" and found it. My search produced quite a few links about this topic. The site will include apartments, condominiums, hotel and park space.

This is just one woman's opinion, but with all the money that is going into this development and what they are gaining in potential revenues plus tax breaks, I have to wonder why Homestead Land Holdings Limited is so reluctant to make vital repairs to existing holdings. A prime example is my own story. It took over 10 1/2 years, of my going through the proper channels, of begging, pleading and trying to get them to replace: my disintegrating and, in some places, non-existant floor tiles; my grossly warped/drafty windows; and make other repairs that should have been made many years earlier.

These vital repairs were not done until January to June, 2006. They were only done then BECAUSE Toxic mould was discovered, in my bedroom, following a roof leak. Bill Gilbert, the superintendent at the time, told me that the roofer, Williams Brothers Restoration, discovered that water was leaking under the flashing. Homestead had been trying to tell me that it was condensation from cooking, showers, etc. that caused the growth of the toxic mould. If that were the case, then commen sense would dictate that every apartment could or should have had the same problem. There has always been only one person living in this apartment, since I moved here in August of 1994, and I do very little cooking, so there is not much "cooking-generated" steam. All year round, I use "tepid" water when showering, again not much steam. My bathroom mirror does not even "steam up". Imagine the steam generated in apartments where there are three, four, even more tenants. Imagine the amount of steam generated from showering, bathing, cooking, etc. Shouldn't they have toxic mould problems, like I did, according to the "line" that Homestead was feeding to me?

THE APARTMENT REPAIRS, THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE MANY, MANY, YEARS AGO, SOME OF THEM POSSIBLY EVEN YEARS BEFORE I MOVED HERE IN AUGUST OF 1994, WERE FINALLY DONE BETWEEN JANUARY AND JUNE OF 2006. THEY WERE ONLY DONE, UPON THE DIRECT ORDER OF THE CITY OF KINGSTON PROPERTY STANDARDS OFFICER. IMAGINE THIS, IN MY MID-FORTIES, I HAD SPENT NEARLY A QUARTER OF MY LIFE (SINCE 1994), TRYING TO GET VITAL REPAIRS MADE IN MY APARTMENT!!!!! IN THAT TIME, THEY COLLECTED NEARLY $50,000 IN RENT FROM ME (I HAVE THE RENT RECEIPTS FROM HOMESTEAD, PRINTED BY THEM AT THEIR 80 JOHNSON ST. RENTAL OFFICE, TO PROVE IT.).

There is a government organization in Ontario, which is allegedly SUPPOSED to protect the rights of the tenants. It is called the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal (ORHT). I think they should be renamed, something like Ontario Landlord Protection Agency (OLPA) ha ha. They "allegedly" enforce the Tenant Protection Act (TPA), which "theoretically" is for the protection of Ontario tenants. I think it should be more appropriately entitled something like "The Landlord, Tenant Kiss Your Cheeks Because You Have No Rights You Idiots, Protection Act (LTKYCBYHNRYIPA). Too long? They do little, if anything at all, to protect the rights of the tenants of this province, especially from the bigger landlords.

If you do a search on the website, you will find many complaints against the ORHT, especially for exhibiting favouritism towards landlords. Check it out. Groups have filed class-action complaints against ORHT. I have "Googled" ORHT. They are referred to as "The Eviction Machine" in many sites, favouring the rights of landlords over tenants. I have "Googled" topics such as "ORHT", "ORHT Eviction Machine", "ORHT Mediators", "ORHT Eviction Statistics". You would not believe the horror stories and eviction statistics I found! I have read on some sites, referrals to some landlords as "slumlords" or "scumlords", but there are too many to mention here. I personally like both terms, for my own situation, epsecially with the "bullying and harassment" and looming eviction threat I am receiving, because of this blog.

In Ontario under the TPA, it is illegal for a landlord to enter a unit or apartment, without a 24 hour written notice, unless there is an emergency (e.g. a fire or a water leak). From what I have seen, this is not what actually happens. It seems to me, through personal experiences (I have the wounds and scars from the bloody battles to prove it!), that landlords find ways to get around this. It also seems to me, that ORHT lets them get away with these and other infractions and/or violations, of the TPA.

On December 19, 2000, I filed a complaint against Homestead Land Holdings with the ORHT (File Number EAT-02346). There were three separate occasions, on which the superintendent (Elsie Davis) attempted to enter my apartment without my prior knowledge or consent. How do I know this, you may ask? Well, I was in bed, at home each time AND I caught her red-handed. There could have been even many more times that she entered the apartment when I was not home, but I have no way of finding out that information. On one of these occasions, her boss Cheryl Lambert was with her. There was yet another occasion, on December 20/00 when she and her boss Cheryl Lambert did enter my apartment, without my prior knowledge or consent, while I was out. Details of these illegal entries are all listed below.:

THE FIRST OCCURRENCE was in the late summer or early autumn of 2000. Elsie left a note on my door, asking me to call her. When I did, we made arrangements for her to come to the apartment. Shortly after that, she arrived with a workman, who inspected the area for signs of water damage around my living room windows, finding none or not telling me he had found some. They told me there had been a leak near the living room windows in the apartment below mine. I was advised that external repairs to the building's siding were to be performed early the following week. After that, someone may need to caulk above the living room windows. This was on a Thursday or Friday afternoon, and the work was to be done the following Monday or Tuesday. I told Elsie, okay, let me know.

Approximately three weeks later, I was in bed when I heard someone using a key to open my deadbolt lock. Except for the superintendent, no one else had a key to my apartment. A previous tenant had installed a keyless sliding bolt, instead of a chain lock, that could only be locked from the inside. If this lock had not been engaged, immediate access would have been gained to my apartment. I grabbed a robe and ran to the door. Standing before me were Elsie, a Homestead property manager (her boss) Cheryl Lambert, and a workman. I asked what the hell (not the exact word I used) they were doing. I was extremely upset, livid, and felt totally violated. Cheryl pulled me aside. She said that Elsie told her I have given her permission to enter the apartment when she was here three weeks earlier. I advised Cheryl that, in no uncertain terms would I give anyone permission to enter my apartment at an unspecified future date, especially for a speculative reason (she had stated on the previous visit that someone may have to return to caulk around the windows). I added that, since I had not received a note or a phone call from Homestead or it's representatives, and the siding work had been completed three weeks earlier, I had assumed that no one had to enter my apartment. I reminded them that they were supposed to provide me with a legally-required 24 hour written notice for non-emergent repairs. What a joke, they know that the ORHT will let them get away with anything! It helps to have political allies, like an MPP. All they have to do is verbally perjure themselves, make sure the tenant cannot obtain a copy of the audiotape(s) of the hearing, and (above all) ensure that none of their testimony is written and legally submitted (no paper trace or tangible proof).

THE SECOND OCCURRENCE was on Friday, Dec. 8/00 at approximately 9 - 9:30 a.m. Again, I was startled to be awakened by someone repeatedly opening the deadbolt lock and pushing against the door. Entry was not gained, because the sliding lock was engaged. When I got to the door, no one was there (but I did see Elsie entering the elevator).

THE THIRD OCCURRENCE was on Thursday, Dec. 14/00. I was again awakened by the sound of someone repeatedly unlocking the deadbolt and pushing against the door. As before, I grabbed a robe and ran to the door. This time, when I opened it, I was confronted by Elsie. She said that she was planning to tape a note to the "outside" of my door. NOW WHY WOULD SHE HAVE TO UNLOCK AND OPEN MY DOOR IN ORDER TO LEAVE A NOTE FOR ME ON THE OUTSIDE OF MY DOOR??? She indicated a piece of paper that she was holding, but did not present it to me. It could have been a grocery list, for all I know. Also, she did not have any tape, which she would need to affix the note to the door.

WHEN I ASKED HER IF SHE HAD BEEN THE ONE WHO HAD TRIED TO ENTER MY APARTMENT ON DECEMBER 8, 2000, SHE CONFESSED THAT SHE HAD. She said that a repair had been made to the heating system on December 8 and she was there to check the radiator. Bear in mind that, it was SIX (6) days before this that the alleged repair had been made. I told her that, at any time in interim, if there had been no heat in the apartment, I would have contacted her. Also, at any time during that period, she could have telephoned me (she had my phone number - my telephone call display showed that she called me on Sept. 23/00), left a note on (or under) my door, knocked on my door to see me (I had been home all week - day and night), left a note in my mailbox, or even left a note on my car. When she became superintendent, I filled out an information form, which included my telephone number and details about my car. She said the previous superintendent had destroyed tenant records. If she had misplaced the number or other information, Homestead's office had all the information on file as well. No excuse.....

As I stated, I filed the complaint with ORHT on Dec. 19/00. As instructed by the ORHT, I attempted to present the superintendent with the Notice of Hearing. I had to personally deliver it to the Landlord or its representative. She refused to accept it. I telephoned Cheryl Lambert to advise her what had transpired. Not only did Elsie refuse to accept the documents, she also became impertinent and argumentative. At first, she vehemently denied unlocking my deadbolt lock and trying to enter the apartment without my knowledge/consent. Then, in the next breath, she shouted that she had to use her key. Elsie threatened to report me to the Kingston Humane Society, because I have cats, stating that there was no heat in the building and that I endangered them because there was no heat in the apartment. I replied that my heat had never been off! I did not even know there had been heating problems! The windows are very drafty, warped, and should have been replaced years ago (my first complaint about a window, in the second bedroom which "flapped" in the wind until I installed a stick across it diagonally, was 10 years ago). In winter they frost up (cannot see through them - and I am the 5th floor, on the top floor, which should be the warmest because heat rises - but windows on lower floors do not frost up like mine) and freeze shut, so I cannot open them to look outside unless the weather is mild for a few days. If the heat was off in my apartment, I would definitely have noticed. Each superintendent I reported it to said it would be repaired soon, when all the windows were replaced. They replaced some at the front of building in the Spring of 2004 and were to replace the rest in the Fall. The current super told me it will now take 2 to 3 years to replace the rest of the windows. A few months ago they built a new building on Portsmouth Ave. (between 523 and 533 Portsmouth Ave. - their buildings), and have a project for four new buildings on Kingston downtown's waterfront for hundreds of millions of dollars in the works, but won't replace windows in an existing building. Also, it is a 64 unit building. Theoretically, she would have to report the landlord for not providing heat in a building where the owner controls the heat. I reminded her that, during the infamous ice storm of 1998 (which affected Ontario and Quebec), the whole building had been without heat and electricity for days (almost 3 days) and the pipes did not freeze!!!!! As follow-up to the conversation, I sent a letter to Cheryl, cc to the ORHT.

THE FOURTH OCCURRENCE was on Dec. 20/00. Cheryl Lambert and Elsie Davis entered my apartment while I was out. I telephoned Cheryl at 11:30 a.m. Cheryl asked me numerous times what it would take to make me happy. She asked if I would cancel the hearing if she provided a letter to me, promising that no one would ever again enter my apartment illegally. My interpretation of that statement was that it was an admission that the superintendent had tried to enter by apartment illegally. That was a mute point - it is illegal for a landlord to enter an apartment without the knowledge or consent of the tenant. Just try to get the ORHT to enforce that law or any law in favour of the tenant! I said I would accept the letter, but not cancel the hearing. She never sent the letter or mentioned it to me again.

Cheryl said that she had a meeting in the building at 2:30 p.m. and could pick up the papers from me. She had also instructed Elsie that she had to accept the documents if I saw her first. She asked if I had a (personal) problem with Elsie or her husband, Arnold Davis. I said I did not like being threatened by Elsie and that the threat was a separate issue from entering the apartment illegally. Also, I added that I may not be a nuclear phycist, but I would have noticed if there were no heat in the apartment.

When I refused her attempts to coerce me into canceling the hearing, she got nasty (her whole demeanor changed - like Jeckyl and Hyde) and said that she would have a whole bunch of professionals testify on her behalf, that I did not stand a chance at the hearing. She said she would get the furnace repairman to say the pipes would freeze and burst, if Elsie had not entered my apartment. I told her that it sounded like she was pulling together the equivalent of the "O. J. Simpson Dream Team", but I refused to submit to hear threats and cancel the hearing.

I told Cheryl that I had to run a couple of errands that afternoon and make a photocopy of my Dec. 19 letter to her. She advised me to leave the papers with Elsie if I went out.

At 12:45 p.m. I phoned Cheryl's office. I left a message with the receptionist and on Cheryl's voice mail that I was going out and that I was leaving the papers with Elsie. I also taped a note for Cheryl, to my door, telling her that I had given the papers to Elsie and that I would try to return home before 3:00 pm. (her meeting with Elsie was at 2:30). Cheryl had told me that if I was not back before she left the building, she would not wait to speak with me.

At 4:00 p.m., I returned home. The note had been removed from my door, indicating that Cheryl had taken it. WHEN I PUT THE KEY IN THE LOCK TO OPEN IT, I REALIZED IN HORROR THAT IT WAS ALREADY UNLOCKED. I entered my apartment cautiously. Upon inspection, the only thing I noticed "out of the ordinary" was that my toilet seat was up. When I leave the apartment, I ALWAYS close the lid on the toilet seat. Why do I do that? Well, it is just a habit, just like making sure lights etc. are turned off and water is turned off. I guess I am a bit obsessive/compulsive about making sure things are turned off, especially the water and electrical items, when I go out.

At 4:07 p.m., I spoke with my neighbour, who was exiting his apartment. His apartment door is only a couple of inches away from my door. Our apartments share a common wall. The walls in this building are "paper thin". I told him that I had gone out at 1:00 p.m. and returned at 4:00, and asked if he had heard anyone in my apartment. He said that he heard me leave and that he heard me check the door, to ensure that it was locked. He heard me return home. During my absence, he heard my door open and close a couple of times shortly before I arrived home. He did not open his door to see who it was, because he was getting ready for work. As I was entering the driveway to the building, Cheryl was leaving in her car, so she had been at my apartment not long before I arrived. He also stated that on a previous occasion, he had seen Elsie trying to use her key to open my door, and that she had advised him that she had my prior consent to enter the apartment. He had mentioned this to me on a previous occasion, as well. ALSO OF NOTE, AT NO TIME DURING HER TENURE IN THIS BUILDING HAD I EVER GIVEN HER PERMISSION TO ENTER MY APARTMENT WHEN I WAS NOT THERE. He told me that if I called the police, he would act as my witness. He was going to work, but they could see him when he returned home later that evening.

I called the police twice, but they did not arrive until more than five hours later. They said that it was not a police matter, if the landlord entered the apartment without my knowledge/consent, that I would have to complain to the ORHT. They also said that a previous tenant could have a key. I advised them that I moved here in August, 1994 and that this was the first break-in and the first time I arrived home to find my door unlocked. I was out for three hours. How would a previous tenant know I was out at all? I added that a previous superintendent had changed my lock in 1998 and that only the superintendent had a key. I have never had roommate(s) and had never given the key or a copy to anyone else. As of today, I only have one copy of the key myself, never having made any duplicates. The officers said that maybe the neighbour heard another door opening down the hallway, but the closest door is 30 feet or more away from my door). There is no mistaking that my door, which is only a couple of inches from the neighbour's door, was opened. They refused to get involved.

The next day at 10:30 a.m. (Dec. 21/00), I telephoned Cheryl. I advised her that I had called the police and that they went to see Elsie afterwards (they did not report to me after seeing Elsie). When I told her I found the door unlocked, she said I must have left it unlocked. I have never left my home unlocked in my life. At 40+ I have locked my door many times, when going out! I advised her that I had a witness who heard me double-check (turn the knob and shake the door - the neighbour has a habit of doing that to his door too) that I had locked the deadbolt. Cheryl admitted that she had taken the note I left taped to the door. She tried to say that she knocked on my door and that must have been misinterpreted as opening/closing the door. Remember, the neighbour said the door was opened/closed a couple of times. Knocking would have only taken a few seconds. Also, the neighbour did not hear someone knocking at my door.

Cheryl demanded that I tell her who had reported hearing someone open/close my apartment door. I refused to give her that information. He had only given permission to divulge his identity to the police.

The ORHT Hearing was held on the morning of January 2, 2001. Cheryl was in France, but she sent an Affidavit. At the beginning of the hearing, Fudge presented what he called the sworn affidavit. When MacInnis asked whether the witness testimony would corroborate the affidavit, he said that he believed that it would. When the transcript is online, you will see for yourself. She lied in her affidavit by stating that I had given Elsie permission to enter the apartment to repair a water leak (1st occurrence). She said she advised me that I would be given 24 hours notice for entry in the future unless there is an emergency (this is required by law anyway, so she was doing me no favour). She also lied by stating that entry had to be gained to my apartment on December 7th and 14th (it was actually the 8th and 14th) to bleed the radiator system of air after repairs had been made. Elsie told me on the 14th she only needed to check the radiator to see if there was heat, and did not even mention or look for air intake valves. She only touched the radiator in the living room, to see if it was warm. I was personally advised, by the Property Standards Officer (the building inspector) for the City of Kingston, Ontario, that there are no air intake valves in any of the 64 rental units plus the super's apartment (which are located from the basement to the 5th floor - over 6 levels) in this building. If the heating system pipes had to be bled of air, it had to be done from the roof, where the valves are located.

The heating contractor (Maurice Theirran) lied, under sworn testimony, that the pipes would have burst if he had been unable to enter the apartment to bleed the valves. He said that he was the contractor who had been maintaining the system, at that time, for the previous 15 years. Do you think he should have known the air intake valves were on the roof, if he self-admittedly was the professional contractor who personally maintained the heating system? He was not with the super when she unlocked my door those two times in December. He said he sent Davis to my door on the 7th, but it was the 8th that she unlocked the door, and again on the 14th.

Elsie lied under sworn testimony. She said that was looking for air intake valves in my apartment, and the other three corner units. I know she did not enter my immediate neighbour's unit. She said she did not enter a unit at the opposite end of the building, because she was afraid of their big German Shepherd (they only had a tiny puppy, a small breed of dog, which she did not fear and used to pet). She said she went back there when they got home from work. She said she did not have my telephone number. (Even if she misplaced it, she could not left a note or gotten my number from the rental office.) When you read the transcript of the tapes, in a separate post, you will see how she contradicts herself several times. At one point she said that she personally checked the valves in two units, and later asked the man in 512 to check the one in his kitchen cupboard. She said he told her it was working and not corroded. Later on she said that she did not know whatit was! All of this is on the hearing tapes and soon will be in a separate post in March.

Cheryl's boss, Jim Minnes attended, but did not provide testimony.

The adjudicator of the hearing was Ian MacInnis, Member of the ORHT. Because of the perjured testimony and affidavit, he awarded judgment to the Landlord. He also ordered me to pay for their legal costs, but advised me that only 50% was allowed by law. Knowing this and the system well in advance, Homestead submitted a padded bill for $150 per hour times 5.5 hours. They were granted $75 per hour times 5.5 hours.

As soon as I returned home from the hearing, I contacted the office of their legal beagle, a Bailiff named Paul J. Fudge. A female, who works at his office and answered the phone, advised me that they only worked for landlords in such cases (ORHT Hearings and Tenant/Landlord disputes) and that his rate was only $75 per hour. At many points in the hearing, I felt that the adjudicator was working for the landlord. At one point, he said, "If you have been living there since 1994, then why are you making trouble for the landlord now?" Does that sound like something an impartial adjudicator should say? I replied that this was the first time that I had "caught" a superintendent trying to enter my apartment illegally. Obviously, I could not state whether such incidents had occurred previously, whenever I was out of the building, and advised him of that as well.

I left the hearing as soon as it ended and went to the ORHT office, to appeal the decision. I was advised that I could not appeal until I received the written Order from the ORHT. The morning's hearing had been taped, onto 3 one hour audiocassettes, both sides of each cassette. The ORHT tried to force me to buy all three tapes ($15 each), because they said my hearing could be on any of the tapes. I could not even afford the $30 at that time, and told them so. There was no way I could afford yet another $15.

I advised them that my hearing was the last of the day and that it was on tapes 2 and 3, explaining that I had watched as MacInnis changed the cassettes and turned them over. I filled out an order form and paid the money. On the OHRT purchase order form, I indicated that I needed the tapes, because I needed the verbal proof that the superintendent and the heating contractor had perjured themselves IN ORDER TO FILE AN APPEAL. I DO NOT KNOW HOW MUCH MORE SPECIFIC I COULD HAVE BEEN, IN TRYING TO LET THEM KNOW JUST HOW IMPORTANT THE TAPES WERE, TO THE APPEAL. I also expressed this verbally to the staff.

When I finally received the tapes on Jan. 24/01, they were the wrong tapes. I ordered tapes 2 and 3, but received tapes 1 and 2. I immediately mailed a letter the ORHT demanding the send the tape # 3 and an explanation in writing as to why they sent the wrong tape. They never replied and I never got the tapes. Several times after that, they phoned, but I would not take their calls. They only accepted written evidence and now I would only accept written evidence.

I contacted the Investigations Unit of the Ministry of Housing for Ontario. I was advised that they could only act on written testimony, that had been received and officially stamped with the ORHT seal. No evidence provided by Homestead, except Cheryl Lambert's affidavit, was in writing. All of the perjured statements were oral. I explained that the OHRT refused to provide me with the oral evidence I had paid for. Because my copy of the affidavit was unsigned and not stamped by ORHT, they would not do anything, even though there was false testimony on it. When I listened to the hearing tapes on March 12th, I realized that Ian MacInnis stated that he had not yet accepted the affidavit into tendered evidence, even though Fudge said it was a sworn affidavit. The contents of the affidavit are the same, either way.

I contacted my local Minister of the Provincial Parliament, John Gerretsen. On Jan. 4, Chris his assistant told me to photocopy my documents, write a detailed summary, and forward them to him. I copied everything and provided a 20 page hand-written synopsis, and a covering letter, which I sent by Registered Mail to his office on Jan. 17/00. I sent another letter on Jan. 24 about the ORHT's refusal to send the correct audiotapes. They would not do anything to help. The following month, my documents were returned, with only a hand-written note on a pink post-it note from the assistant, Chris. The note read: "John asked me to return these papers to you. He has kept photo copies of everything. Unfortunately, there really isn't anything more he can suggest at this time.".

John had never made suggestions or done anything to help. GUESS WHAT: Gerretsen had been the Mayor of Kingston for years. Then he became MPP directly from that position and this was his second term as MPP. In 2003, he was elected for his 3rd Term and, in October was appointed by McGuinty as the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. One of his major political contributors/supporters is, you may have guessed it, HOMESTEAD LAND HOLDINGS LIMITED. DURING EVERY ELECTION, ON THE PROPERTY OF EACH OF THEIR NEARLY 50 APARTMENT BUILDINGS IN KINGSTON, THEY DISPLAY GERRETSEN'S CAMPAIGN SIGNS. THE POLLS IN MY DISTRICT ARE HELD EACH TIME AT ONE OF THEIR APARTMENT BUILDINGS. IN THE LAST PROVINCIAL ELECTION, I DROVE AROUND TOWN AND SAW THAT GERRETSEN'S CAMPAIGN SIGNS WERE AGAIN DISPLAYED ON ALL HOMESTEAD'S PROPERTIES. GERRETSEN ALSO USED TO BE A LAWYER, BEFORE ENTERING MUNICIPAL AND PROVINCIAL POLITICS, AND I UNDERSTAND IS A FRIEND OF THE SMITHS.

Since then, I have filed complaints (about the ORHT and the MPP) with the Premier of Ontario, Ernie Eaves. His name and address was listed on the ORHT website as a person to contact with complaints about the ORHT. He wrote me on Jan. 23/03, refusing to help, stating that ORHT was a self-governing agency. THAT'S GOOD - A SELF-GOVERNING GOVERNMENT OF ONTARIO OFFICE. I contacted Premier Dalton McGuinty. He wrote back on Feb. 24/04, and also refused to help, for the same reasons. He directed me to the Ombudsman's office. I wrote to the Ombudsman's office at the address provided by McGuinty. They contacted me and told me they could not help. If they performed an investigation, they could only make suggestions, and nothing else, sort of like a mediator. They also said too much time had passed and the audiocassette evidence would have been destroyed a long time ago.

For her part, by perjuring herself at the ORHT Hearing in January/01, Elsie and husband Arnold Davis, very soon afterwards got promoted by Homestead, to be superintendents at a larger apartment building with a juicy raise. They are still there at 130 Parkway. Arnold filed some sort of bogus Worker's Comp. claim, saying he injured his foot. As soon as his claim was approved, he stopped limping. What a miracle. John Gerretsen, MPP, with the support of Homestead Land Holdings Limited, was elected to a third term of office as Member of Provincial Parliament. In October, 2003, McGuinty appointed him as Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

UPDATE RE ARNOLD DAVIS (PREVIOUS PARAGRAPH). I WAS WAITING FOR THE ELEVATOR, IN THE BASEMENT LEVEL OF MY BUILDING, ON FEB. 18/06. I WATCHED AS DAVIS ENTERED THE HALLWAY AT THE OPPOSITE END OF THE BUILDING (HE STILL USES HIS PASS KEY FROM 2001, WHICH I UNDERSTAND HE IS NOT SUPPOSED TO HAVE. ACCORDING TO MARTIN WOOCK AND HOMESTEAD, WHEN STAFF LEAVE A BUILDING, THEY HAVE TO RETURN ALL KEYS TO THEM.). HE HAD USED HIS PASS KEY TO ENTER THE BUILDING. HE WAS VISIBLY COLD AND COMMENTED ON HOW COLD IT WAS OUTSIDE, AS WE RODE UP ON THE ELEVATOR. HE WENT TO VISIT BILL GILBERT AND DAVE VANHOOSER IN 509, FOR A BEER (OR MORE). I DID NOT WITNESS HIM LIMPING AT ALL. IN FACT, EVERY TIME I HAVE SEEN HIM OVER THE YEARS SINCE HE FILED A WORKER'S COMPENSATION INJURY CLAIM (Now WSIB, Workplace Safety and Insurance Board of Ontario), I HAVE NEVER SEEN HIM LIMP. I SEE HIM FREQUENTLY (several times a week)ON HOMESTEAD-OWNED PROPERTY ON PARKWAY, WHETHER HE IS DOING CHORES, WALKING A DOG, OR WHATEVER.

TOXIC MOULD FOUND IN MY APARTMENT ON DECEMBER 26, 2004:

Around dinner-time on December 26, 2004, something fell behind a nightstand in my bedroom. I had to move it. I was horrified to find toxic mould. Upon further inspection, I found thick, furry toxic mould, covering the walls behind the furniture, that was close to the two outside walls. This is a corner unit apartment, on the top floor. There are two outside walls in the master bedroom. In the corner of the ceiling and the edges of the ceiling adjacent to the outside walls, there were a couple of spots of mould. It was not covered like the walls and closet. It covered the area behind my armoire, the headboard of my bed, and my two nightstands. Immediately, I dragged what I could out of the bedroom (the dresser, armoire and a nightstand). I then called the super (Bill Gilbert), who inspected the whole apartment for mould. While he was here, I opened the bedroom closet, finding one wall and part of the ceiling covered with mould. There was also water on the floor of the closet. Much of the clothing, bedding (including a new duvet, down pillows, new towels that were gifts, 2 new suitcases) and other items were totally destroyed by the mould. Gilbert refused to look at the destroyed items, telling me to show Lambert, whenever she did her inspection. I VIDEOTAPED THE ACTUAL TOXIC MOULD. I HAVE THE ORIGINAL VIDEO ON THE 8 MM CASSETTE.

I telephoned Doug Werden, the Property Standards Officers immediately on the morning, when the office opened after Christmas. He arrived here in less than an hour, on December 29th, and took photos of the mould damage. He also inspected the whole apartment, noting the squalor. He also viewed the damage to my personal items.

On December 30th, Lambert, Mr. Werden and Gilbert completed an inspection. Mr. Werden ordered Lambert to not only treat the mould and repaint the room, but to also replace the disintegrating asbestos floor tiles, that I had been begging them to replace for over 10 1/2 years. He was advised by Lambert that all of the bedroom windows were to be replaced in the Spring, along with the rest of the windows at the rear of the building. He then ordered her to replace my windows first, when the window replacements finally began. Even though the living room windows were not to be replaced until the following year, he also ordered her to replace my living room windows at the same time (When this was done in June/05, my living room windows were the only ones replaced of all the windows at the two ends end of the building; the building's front windows were replaced Spring 2004 and the rear windows were replaced in June 2005.). He also ordered that the bathtub be refinished, the kitchen counter and sink be replaced (they only replaced the basket in the sink), and some other work. I was advised that a painter would treat the mould and paint the room on Dec. 31, 2004. This is when the painter first reported that the rad was not working. Homestead repeatedly refused to fix the rad, until Jan. 12. When I told Mr. Werden, he ordered them to fix the rad immediately.

During the inspection, I asked Lambert to help me replace the items that were destroyed by the mould. Without hesitation, she said yes. I tried to show her everything that was damaged, but she literally brushed me off, as though I was not even there. Some time weeks later, I talked to Mr. Werden about the damage to my personal items. He told me that he remembered all the items, especially the clothing, because I had shown them all to him as well on December 29th, when he took the mould photos. SEE correspondences below: I refer to that encounter with Lambert in my Nov. 6, 2005 e-mail to Woock, where I also ask him to compensate for the items that were stolen/poisoned on Sept. 8, 2005. In his Nov. 8, 2005 reply, he says that he will not compensate for the items stolen/poisoned during the break-in. He also refuses to even discuss compensation for the mould damage (which was in excess of $6,200). I had requested compensation in other correspondences, but he either refused or ignored the requests, depending on his reply.

The items that were destroyed by the mould were foul-smelling and the toxic mould was seriously aggravating my asthma. I needed to get rid of them quickly, so I could begin to breathe again. On the afternoon of Dec. 30, I phoned Lambert. I told her that I had to discard the toxic-mould destroyed items right away, because they were seriously aggravating my asthma. She asked if I had showed them to Gilbert. I said yes, but he did not pay attention to them, telling me I had to show them to Lambert at the inspection. I tried to remind her, how she had brushed me off when I tried to show them to her at the inspection, but she curtly interrupted me and said to go ahead.

I had no one to witness all of the items, and could not count on what Gilbert or Lambert would admit to seeing, so I set up my Sanyo 8 mm camcorder. I placed the videocamera on my nightstand and let it run continuously on record, videotaping myself as I took each item, piece by piece, and placed it in trash bags. I did not turn the camera off, until I had finished bagging the items. I feared that someone would try to say that I tampered with the recording in some way. I still have the original recording, on the 8 mm cassette, just in case there are questions about the authenticity of the tape. I tied up the bags, placing them on the bed and floor, only turning the camera off when I was about to take the bags and other items, out to the garbage bins.

EVEN THOUGH I WAS WEARING AN OLD T-SHIRT AND PANTS WHILE DOING THIS, YOU CAN SEE THE BRUISES ON MY ARMS, THAT I WAS AFFLICTED WITH WHEN PUSHING THE FURNITURE OUT OF THE ROOM. WHAT THE CAMERA DID NOT SHOW, WAS THAT MY WHOLE BODY WAS COVERED WITH BRUISES, ESPECIALLY MY CHEST, STOMACH, AND LEGS. I HAD DIFFICULTY BREATHING AND WAS IN CONSTANT PAIN.

On January 4, 2005, Mr. Werden asked me to compile a list of all the necessary repairs and give it to Homestead. He advised me to date it, indicate that I was giving a copy to him, so that the landlord would know that it was on his authorization and to ensure that they would carry out the repairs. Some of the repairs listed were: replace the disintegrating asbestos tiles throughout (in a few areas, there were places where the tiles had lifted years ago leaving bare floor); replace the kitchen counter and sink (they refused to replace the sink, just the sink basket); refinish the tub; replace the bathroom sink and turn on the hot water tap that had been shut off for over a year; replace the bathroom door; replace two bedroom doors (but they never replaced them, just fixed the hinges on one and painted the other); fix a tub leak, install new switch plate covers (previous tenant had wall-papered them and it was never removed), etc. Afterwards, I requested and eventually got them to install closet doors on the coat closet (never had doors); install a ceiling fan in the dining area (they had been installing them in other apartments for years). install a toilet roll dispenser (never had one in the bathroom); install a towel bar on the new bathroom door; paint the bathroom, hallway, kitchen, dining/living room. Only painting the master bedroom was on the initial list. The apartment had not been painted, since before I moved here in 1994, almost 11 years earlier. The two smaller bedrooms were not touched, except to replace the windows in June.

Those repairs were made over the next two months. The mould came back again, and the painter had to return to retreat the mould and repaint the room on January 12th. That was when the Williams Brothers advised Gilbert the superintendent, who in turn advised me, that there was a leak from the roof. Water was blowing under the flashing. This caused the mould. The windows were not replaced until June 29, 2005. They were supposed to be replaced in the Spring. Actually, all the supers had been telling me since 1998, that they were supposed to be replaced "the following year", which is the excuse they continually used for not replacing the second bedroom window, across which I had placed a stick diagonally across the top half, to stop it from "flapping in the wind". I have a photo of that window, as well as video footage of it.

It was not until mid-January, that I could finally return to my bedroom. In the interim, for nearly a month, I had to sleep on a small two-seater patio couch, that was set up in my living room. Even though I am short, this was far too short for me and was very uncomfortable. The bed and other nightstand also had to be crowded into my living room, while the bedroom tiles were being replaced. Before finding the mould, I telephoned Telehealth Ontario, because I had serious difficulties breathing, wondering why my steroid inhaler and fast-acting inhalers were not working. I have since received the Telehealth Ontario written report. I could not even walk across the room, without experiencing serious shortness-of-breath and gasping for air. I had gotten very ill, from the mould, and when I finally got a chance during renovations, to see my physician, he had to treat me with antibiotics for a very serious lung infection. I have a letter, from my physician.

HOMESTEAD HAS NEVER OFFERED A SINGLE PENNY, TO COMPENSATE FOR THE MANY PERSONAL ITEMS THAT WERE TOTALLY DESTROYED BY THE TOXIC MOULD, SOME OF THEM GIFTS, WHICH RESULTED FROM THE WATER BLOWING UNDER THE FLASHING, WHICH IN TURN RESULTED FROM THE STATE OF DISREPAIR OF THE ROOF. I HAVE AN ESTIMATED COST OF REPLACEMENT LIST FOR THOSE ITEMS, IN EXCESS OF $6,200 (17 SILK BLOUSES, 2 BRAND NEW 32" UPRIGHT PULLMAN SUITCASES, 11 BRAND NEW DESIGNER BATH SHEETS, A NEW DUVET/DOWN PILLOWS, DOWN SLIPPERS, 9 PAIRS OF SLACKS, 6 SUMMER CAPRI PANTS, AN ATTACHÉ, PORTFOLIO, JEWELLERY ARMOIRE THAT WAS THE FINAL GIFT FROM MY HUSBAND BEFORE HE DIED FROM CANCER, VERY EXPENSIVE WINDOW COVERINGS, ETC.). THEY ALSO NEVER OFFERED A PENNY IN COMPENSATION FOR THE HARM TO MY HEALTH, DIRECTLY RESULTING FROM THE MOULD, FOR THE SEVERE EXACERBATION OF MY ASTHMA, A SERIOUS LUNG INFECTION, SHEER EXHAUSTION, AND THE EXCRUCIATING PHYSICAL PAIN I ENDURED FOR THE TWO MONTHS, WHILE REPAIRS WERE BEING MADE. BECAUSE I CONTINUALLY HAD TO MOVE FURNITURE AND OTHER ITEMS AROUND, WHILE THE REPAIRS WERE BEING MADE AND FOR THE PAINTING TO BE DONE, I WAS CONSTANTLY IN EXCRUCIATING PHYSICAL PAIN FROM MY NECK TO MY TOES, AND WAS UNABLE TO GET VERY MUCH SLEEP!!!

UPDATE FROM KITTEN ON FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2006: HERE IS THE EVICTION NOTICE I RECEIVED TODAY.: I received an eviction notice from my landlord. I shall transcribe the entire document, in verbatim, including their obvious spelling errors..

Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal: Notice to Terminate a Tenancy Early Form N5

Termination Date: You must move out of the rental unit indentified above on or before 02/03/66) (day/month/year)

Part A Reasons for this notice:

2. "You, your guest or another occupant of the rental unit has substantially interfered with the reasonable enjoyment of the residential complex by the landlord or other tenants or has interfered with another lawful right, privilege or interest of the landlord or other tenants.".
End of Part A

I reviewed my lease, "with a fine-tooth comb" and found no clause that even remotely resembles this statement.

Part B: Details About the Reasons for this Notice:

"ON OCTOBER 10, 2005, THE TENANT MS. S____ D___COMMUNICATED TO THE LANDLORD THAT SOMEONE HAD BROKEN INTO HER APARTMENT USING A KEY. DURING SUBSEQUENT MULTIPLE COMMUNICATIONS, MS. D___ BECAME MORE ADAMANT AND ACCUSATORY THAT IT WAS THE LANDLORDS SITE STAFF WHOM ENTERED HER APARTMENT. THE LANDLORD HAS MADE REPEATED REQUESTS TO MS. D___ TO INITIATE AN INVESTIGATION THROUGH THE KINGSTON POLICE DEPARTMENT AND TO DATE HAS NOT BEEN MADE AWARE OF ANY OFFICIIAL OUTCOME ON THE MATTER. MS. D___ CONTINUES TO COMMUNICATE UNFOUNDED ACCUSATIONS CONCERNING THE LANDLORD AND IT'S EMPLOYEES BY POSTING SUCH DETAILS ON A PUBLIC INTERNET WEB SITE.

ON NOVEMBER 15, 2004, IT CAME TO THE LANDLORDS ATTENTION THAT A WEBSITE, kingstonkittens.tripod.com, HAD BEEN ESTABLISHED BY MS. D___ TO PUBLICALLY DENOUNCE AND HARASS THE LANDLORD AND IT'S EMPLOYEES WITH MALICIOUS UNTRUTHS. THE WEBSITE WAS REMOVED BY THE SERVICE PROVIDER LYCOS INC. WITH INTERVENTION BY THE LANDLORD, AS IT WAS HARASSING, LIBELOUS, DEFAMATORY AND CONTRAVENED THE P.I.P.E.D.A ACT. MS. ____ WAS ISSUED A LETTER DATED DECEMBER 8, 2004, FROM THE LANDLORDS LEGAL COUNCIL.

ON FEBRUARY 3, 2006, IT CAME TO THE LANDLORDS ATTENTION THAT ANOTHER WEBSITE, kingstonkittens5.blogspot.com HAD BEEN ESTABLISHED BY MS. ____. THE WEBSITE CONTAINS IDENTICAL COPY TO THE PREVIOUS SITE KINGSTONKITTENS.TRIPOD.COM, WITH ADDITIONAL REFERENCES TO FURTHER UNFOUNDED ALLEGATIONS. THE CONTENT OF THIS WEB SITE IS HARASSING, LIBELOUS, DEFAMATORY AND CONTRAVENES THE P.I.P.E.D.A ACT. THIS BREACH MAY BE CORRECTED BY THE TENANT CEASING AND DESISTING IMMEDIATELY ANY FORM OF HARASSMENT TOWARDS THE LANDLORD."
End of Part B

This eviction notice was slipped under my apartment door this afternoon. Someone (a tall male, whom I think was Martin Woock; who was accompanied by a female, whom I think was his assistant Kim Adams; on my TV, via the videocamera in the lobby, I watched them exit the building through the front door, mere seconds after leaving my door and entering the elevator; the elevator made only one stop after they entered it) had been repeatedly "pounding" on my door in four (4) separate, distinct series of "pounding", which rather alarmed and scared me, which is why I refused to open the door. I can only surmise and hypothesize that they were pounding very loudly on my door, so they would attract the attention of neighbours, so that they could intimidate and embarrass me when they loudly announced that they were presenting me with an eviction notice. Through the paper thin walls, I could hear my next-door neighbour, Danny, comment on the loud door-"pounding". I received the following e-mail, from Woock, at 2:56 p.m. (I am guessing it was sent to me immediately upon their arrival at the 80 Johnson St. rental office.):

E-mail from Woock, regarding the eviction notice on Feb. 10, 06:

----- Original Message -----
From: Martin Woock
To: S____ D____
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 2:56 PM
Subject: Document Delivery
Dear Ms. D___:

Please be advised that we were at your door today, February 10, 2006, at approximately 2:30 p.m., to deliver a document, but were unable to deliver it personally as there was no answer at the door. The document was served under your door, and we trust that you have received it. Please contact this office if you have any questions in this regard.

Sincerely,

Martin Woock
Kim Adams
End of e-mail from Woock

P.I.P.E.D.A. is the Federal Government of Canada "Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act". I initially contacted the federal government under "Freedom of Information" in the telephone book at 1-800-267-0441, from which a female referred me to the Federal Government Privacy Commissioner at 1-800-282-1376. From their website http://www.privcom.gc.ca/ I followed the links, then accessed and read the entire copy of P.I.P.E.D.A. (at URL http://laws.justice.gc.ca/P-8.6/text.html) and could find absolutely no information or clause within the Act to substantiate the landlord's claim that I have acted in contravention of P.I.P.E.D.A., in any format whatsoever, because of the contents of my personal blog (hence the address blogspot.com) OR my original website at http://kingstonkittens.tripod.com which they forced tripod.com to shut down. In summary and more specifically, they allege in the eviction notice (ORHT Form N5, Notice to Terminate a Tenancy Early) that the information contained on my personal blog, this personal blog at http://www.kingstonkittens5.blogspot.com/, is in contravention of P.I.P.E.D.A. I then telephoned the Government of Canada Privacy Commissioner, at the number I mentioned above (1-800-282-1376). I was advised that I did not find any information in P.I.P.E.D.A because a personal blog is not under the jurisdiction of P.I.P.E.D.A. or regulated by the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act in any way at all. I am not affiliated with any corporation or organization. A personal blog is just that, personal information.

PLEASE NOTE THAT THE LANDLORD REFERRED TO MY BREAK-IN, IN THE EVICTION NOTICE DATED FEB. 10, 2006. I HAD NEVER PREVIOUSLY POSTED ANY INFORMATION, WHATSOEVER, REGARDING THE BREAK-IN ON MY BLOG. On October 30, 2005, I sent my rent cheque, with several receipts to Woock to replace some of the items stolen/potentially poisoned by the intruder. I will transcribe, in verbatim, his November 1, reply. I notified the landlord that I had been in contact with the Kingston Police Department on numerous occasions. I sent an e-mail to Martin Woock, on November 30, 2004 (the most recent e-mail concerning the break-in that I sent to him, for which he never even bothered to reply).

FOLLOWING IS JUST A SMALL SAMPLE OF SOME OF THE MORONIC CORRESPONDENCES, THAT I HAVE "ENJOYED" (I NEARLY CHOKED ON THAT!), RATHER HAD TO TOLERATE FROM WOOCK: I AM INCLUDING 4 CORRESPONDENCES: (1) NOV. 1/05 LETTER FROM WOOCK; (2) MY NOV. 6/05 E-MAIL TO WOOCK; (3) NOV. 8/05 REPLY TO MY NOV. 6 E-MAIL, FROM WOOCK; (4) MY NOV. 30/05 E-MAIL TO WOOCK. THERE HAVE BEEN MANY MORE THAN THESE.:

(1) NOVEMBER 1, 2005 LETTER FROM WOOCK, WHICH I HAVE TRANSCRIBED IN VERBATIM, FROM HOMESTEAD LETTERHEAD, VIA CANADA POST:

Re: Your Letter of October 30th and cheque #034

Dear Ms. D___:

We are in receipt of your aforementioned letter and cheque and note the contents thereof.

As indicated in our previous correspondence, most recently October 26th, we believe that you should request an investigation by the Kingston Police to determine whether in fact a "break-in" did occur at your apartment and who was responsible for it. We are quite willing to participate in this and indeed encourage you to proceed as soon as possible.

Until a determination has been made that a break-in has occurred and that Homestead personnel were responsible for it we cannot credit your rent for items you chose to replace and respectfully request that you forward the balance of your rent ($567.36) by return mail. We return herewith your receipts at this time.

Thanking you, Homestead Land Holdings Limited Per Martin Woock, Area Manager; /cr; encl./cc: Cheryl Lambert, Property Manager End of Nov. 1/05 letter from Woock

Do you believe the nerve of this jerk??? He has stated "in writing no less" that he is implying that I am a liar about the break-in!!!!! Food and other items were stolen from my apartment. I had placed a recently purchased, unopened bottle of Boric Acid in the cupboard over my kitchen sink. On inspection right after the break-in, I discovered that the bottle was almost empty. What kind of idiot would I have to be, to imagine having food and other items stolen from my apartment? Did I imagine it, that unopened bottle of boric acid I had placed in the cupboard was nearly empty when I inspected immediately after the break-in? NO, NO, NO!!!!! Just WHO the hell does Woock think he is? Also note, the implication in the last paragraph. When the truth comes out about the break-in, they better be prepared to compensate me, and for FAR more than the value of the stolen/poisoned items.

Two days later, on November 3/05, a notice was slipped under my door, to pay the balance of the rent. I had not even received the above letter via Canada Post yet! Then soon after, the superintendent hand-delivered an EVICTION NOTICE (Notice to Terminate a Tenancy Early for Non-Payment of Rent) dated November 10, 2005 and signed by Cheryl Lambert. I advised the super that I had already mailed my rent balance that morning. My friend at Kingston Coalition Against Poverty (KCAP) advised me to send the cheque. On my cheque, that I made out the evening before and dated November 9th, I wrote: "SUBMITTED UNDER DURESS AND WILL PURSUE MATTER LEGALLY WHEN I PROVE SECURITY BREACH". There is not much room for commentary on those personal cheques! Maybe I should order larger ones next time, ha ha.

(2) MY E-MAIL TO WOOCK DATED NOVEMBER 6, 2005, COPIED DIRECTLY FROM MY MAILBOX:

----- Original Message -----

From: @sympatico.ca

To: mwoock@homestead.on.ca
Cc: ORHT ; John Gerretsen
Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2005 3:55 AM
Subject: Re: your notice

Dear Mr. Woock:

I just received your notice.

After mailing my letter, receipts and November rent cheque directly to you, I accessed my chequing account via telephone banking. My cheque No. 34 cleared my bank on November 3rd, 2005.

Since you deposited my cheque and it cleared the bank, I understood this to be an indicator that you accepted the cheque and receipts as total rent payment for the month of November, 2004, especially since I have always paid my full rent on time (since August 1994)! Otherwise, why would you deposit that particular cheque in the first place, if you were not going to accept it and the receipts as full payment for November's rent? I had not stated that I was sending another cheque, since I specifically stated the purpose of the receipts in my letters of October 30, 2005 (attached below). Also, since the break-in occurred in my apartment, in which someone accessed my apartment using a key, you authorized the current superintendent to change my lock. I have since then found out from other tenants that mine is not the only lock that you have changed for security reasons and that you are in the process of changing all tenant/apartment locks in the building (64 units) and other locks for areas not accessible to tenants have also been changed. In addition, I reiterate from previous correspondences to you, that I have never given a copy of my key to anyone or allowed anyone to copy it. When your then superintendent Peter McDonald changed the lock in 1998, he advised me that there were only 2 master keys to the brand new lock, which he installed. He gave one key to me and kept the other for Homestead, advising me that no one else would have access to my apartment, because the Shlage lock, further adding that it was not even compatible with the master key to the building (Weiser manufactured locks).

I surmise that you are treating this in the same inconsiderate way your office has treated me with respect to the mould damage in my apartment. I found mould, covering the two outside walls and much of the closet, in my master bedroom on December 26th, 2004. The mould was treated and the room painted on December 31st. After the mould returned and the room had to be repainted, you finally hired William's Brothers to inspect the roof. They found and repaired the flashing. The superintendent advised me the same day, very soon after they left, that when windy outside, water had blown under the flashing, through the roof, and into my room. Most of my clothing (including but not limited to almost all of my fine silk - 17 blouses, only several were saved through laundering), bedding (including an expensive white goose down duvet, feather bed, and white goose down pillows that my parents had given my as a birthday/Christmas gift in December, 2003, only the year before), my expensive window coverings, and other personal property were damaged beyond repair and had to be thrown out. Mould literally "eats" through fibers, especially natural fibers such as silk and down feathers. Cheryl Lambert was at my apartment, for an inspection on December 30th, 2004. I specifically asked her then whether she would help me replace these items and she said immediately replied yes. YET, no attempt has been made by her or Homestead Land Holdings to replace any of these items. You have not offered even a mere penny. Why have you not helped replace the damaged items, as Ms. Lambert promised that day, items which by the way would not have been damaged beyond repair, if it were not for the leak from the roof, a structural problem?????

It was only AFTER this mould damage was found, that you finally did some very crucial repairs to my apartment. For nearly 10 1/2 years, I had been begging you to replace the disintegrating asbestos floor tiles and fix the windows, asking each superintendent who has worked here since August 1994 to do these repairs. I even documented them in writing, while at your rental office, in the spring or summer of 1999. By the time you finally replaced them, there were areas where the tiles had disintegrated so much, there was no tile left. I had also requested many times that you fix my windows, which were grossly warped with rotting wooden window boxes, and were drafty enough to "flap" my mini-blinds and even my expensive heavy gauge vinyl blind when they were closed, which consequently made the apartment very cold. In the second bedroom window, I had installed a stick diagonally across the top of the window soon after I moved in, because in wind the outside pane slapped against the inside pane. (I had also listed the window problems in the document I note above in 1999.) Since then, on two occasions, the glass in the inside pane of the master bedroom had to be replaced. When the superintendents inspected the windows, they said it was obvious that I had not broken them, that instead they had broken from the outside. The second time it happened, when McDonald inspected it, he refused to even attempt to remove it, fearing that it would fall out because the frame was so insecure. A window company was called in to remove the glass and repair it. Upon their inspection, the window company employees showed me how the whole window was being held in place by only one bolt near the top of the frame. They had to drill holes and install bolts, in order to secure it to the building. That was in 1998. At that time, I again asked McDonald about fixing the 2nd bedroom window, but it was not done. I was told to leave it until new windows were to be installed. No other super had the problem fixed when I asked them either and the new windows were not installed until June, 2005! There were other problems with the apartment, but the windows and tiles were of the utmost concern, and I had asked (BEGGED) each superintendent, who has worked in this building since August 1994, to have the repairs made, but I was refused each time. Each of the many times I asked Elsie Davis about when the tiles were to be replaced, she kept telling me that it was impossible to get in touch with Don the tile guy, whom I later found out was a Homestead employee, who advised me there had been no trouble contacting him. When he was here, I told him what Davis had said. These vital repairs (and many other repairs) were made by you only after the mould was found and you were directly ordered to complete them by Doug Werden, the Property Standards Officer for the City of Kingston, following his inspection of the apartment after the mould damage was found.

WHY DO YOU REPEATEDLY KICK A DEAD HORSE WHEN IT IS DOWN????????

Sincerely, S____ D___

COPY OF MY OCTOBER 30, 2005 LETTERS ATTACHED BELOW:
October 30, 2005

Martin Woock
Area Manager
Homestead Land Holdings Limited
80 Johnson Street
Kingston, ON K7L 1X7

Dear Mr. Woock:

RE: Break-in at 501 Normandy on Sept. 8, 2005

I had an intuitive feeling, at the last moment before I was to mail my cheque, letter, and receipts, that I should mail the cheque in a separate envelope. The two-page letter to which I refer, is addressed to Martin Woock, and also dated October 30, 2005. Along with that letter, I have enclosed 3 receipts (in the amounts of $488.03, $69.38, and $9.95).
Sincerely,
S____ D___


1 Enclosure: My Cheque No. 034, dated Nov. 1, 2005, in the amount of $54.32

October 30, 2005

Martin Woock
Area Manager
Homestead Land Holdings Limited
80 Johnson Street
Kingston, ON K7L 1X7

Dear Mr. Woock:

RE: Break-in at 501 Normandy on Sept. 8, 2005

I am enclosing receipts, for the items which I have most recently replaced. I still have quite a few items to replace.

After the break-in, I had to throw out everything that was open in the refrigerator, cupboards, and freezer, and even things in the bathroom. I had no way of knowing which items were tampered with and could not take a chance using any of it, especially with my medications. If someone was sleazy and desperate enough to perform such an act, then who knows how they tampered with any open containers. I simply could not chance using any of the items, in light of that situation.

The ONLY other copy of my key WAS HELD EXCLUSIVELY by Homestead Land Holdings Limited, under the supervision of your superintendent. There had been a problem with a previous lock, which was replaced by Peter MacDonald when he was the superintendent, in 1998. He gave me one of the keys and kept the other one for Homestead. I recall that, at the time he replaced the lock, he stated that there were only two keys for that lock, the one which I had and the one which he kept. It was a brand new lock. As I have stated in numerous correspondences with you, I have not given a copy of my key to anyone. Also, I have never had a roommate or even an overnight guest in all my time at Parkway, since August 1994. I do not entertain and have had no one in my apartment, who could have copied my key. Even when my car is being serviced, I only supply the mechanic with keys to my car, removing them from my key ring.

You stated in one of your e-mail correspondences that the previous superintendents no longer had access to the keys. Well, you keep attempting to gloss over the fact that St. Louis WAS IN FACT the ACTING SUPERINTENDENT at the time when this break-in occurred. I had been trying for weeks to catch the burglars on videotape, as I have stated in previous correspondences to you, but apparently the reason why I did not get that opportunity was because you gave St. Louis a new job and moved her to Queen Mary Road.

I am on a fixed income and surely you should try to understand how difficult it has been for me financially. I still have much to replace, especially from my refrigerator (fruit, vegetables, etc. and other things from my cupboards). This ordeal has not only been taxing financially, it has also been extremely stressful and difficult, something which I have copiously explained in previous correspondences to you. At the very least, you could have treated me with someone respect and common courtesy, much like one would expect to be treated as a human. Instead, you have been totally unsympathetic, inconsiderate, and complacent, and even combatant and confrontational at times. You are only concerned with protecting the employee, who abused the privilege of her position and broke into my apartment. I am the innocent victim in all of this and you have treated me horribly. I am sure I do not have to reiterate the complaints I have made against St. Louis (June 3rd domestic disturbance reported to police; June and July when her common-law partner attempted to enter my apartment when drunk; July 1 when I overheard Gilbert tell Rick from mere feet away that I was the one who reported him to police; Marlene walking by the male smoking in the lobby which I videotaped; Marlene walking the dog on extended leash; not responding to the noise complaint against 502). There was definitely motive to retaliate against me and, since she was the acting super at the time, there was also means (access to my key). Add to that even more motive, the fact that she was hired because of her affiliation with Gilbert and his animosity towards me (especially the many complaints I had to file with your office, which I have documented in many correspondences with you, Lambert and Minnes), and you have a perfect recipe for her wishing to retaliate against me.

The enclosed three invoices are: $488.03, $69.38 and $9.95, for a total of $567.36. Subtracted from my usual amount for rent of $621.68, the total is $54.32. You will also find enclosed my personal cheque in the amount of $54.32

Sincerely,
S____ D___
Enclosures: 4

End of November 6, E-Mail to Woock

(3) I SHALL TRANSCRIBE IN VERBATIM, WOOCK'S REPLY TO NOV. 6 E-MAIL, ON HOMESTEAD LETTERHEAD VIA CANADA POST, DATED NOVEMBER 8, 2005:

Dear Ms. D___:

We are in receipt of your letter of November 6th and note the contents thereof.

We responded to your previous correspondence on November 1st outlining our position regarding your rent and urging you to proceed with an investigation through the Kingston Police. In the interim we accepted your cheque as part payment and await your remittance of the balance by return mail.

Your letter makes no reference to a proposed meeting with the police and it would appear that you are not prepared to pursue this matter through the authorities. We would welcome such an investigation and once again urge you to contact the police.

The locks in the building are being changed as a matter of due dilligence. This will be done over the next 6 months or so and is not a knee-jerk reaction to your allegations. With respect to the balance of your letter, these matters appear to be historical and were dealt with in the past. We are not prepared to keep raking over the past as many of your letters are want to do, although we welcome any comments or concerns regarding the current states of your apartment or building. They should be directed to your Superintendent or Property Manager for prompt response.

Sincerely, Homestead Land Holdings Limited, Per: Martin Woock, Area Manager; /cr

End of Nov. 8/05 letter from Woock

(4) BEGINNING OF E-MAIL TO MARTIN WOOCK DATED NOVEMBER 30, 2005:

----- Original Message -----
From: _________@sympatico.ca
To: mwoock@homestead.on.ca
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 3:30 PM
Subject: LMR Interest and your Nov. 24th letter
Dear Mr. Woock:

I appreciate the time you took, to explain to me, the methods you employ to calculate LMR interest. I was a little unclear on one point, though. Does this mean that the "current" interest was calculated to March 31st, 2005 or November 30, 2005?

I received your November 24th letter, via Canada Post, yesterday. I still have my videocamera cassette and my VHS copy, from the days on which I set up the camera, when I hoped to obtain indisputable evidence should the party have returned. In fact, my camera is still connected to my VCR! I attempted to file a burglary report on October 18th, but the KPD Dispatcher was curt, to say the least. On November 8th, I spoke with a lady named Allison. She advised me that she was not the Allison at KPD, to whom you referred in a previous e-mail correspondence to me. After I explained all that had happened, she took the report and provided me with KPD Incident #05-37793.

During a follow-up telephone call, which I initiated, I was told that the case had been assigned to a Constable Brewer. Unfortunately, I have not heard from him, at all. I am equally concerned about several factors, not the least of which is the fact that someone entered my apartment, and the potential poisoning of my medications/food/beverages. I have, in my possession the nearly-empty package which contained the contaminant. It originally was a full, unopened container, which I had purchased only weeks earlier and had never opened. Ingestion of this product is very dangerous. I may have unknowingly ingested some of it. I am undergoing medical investigations. If I can get the police to do something with this case, I have items that could be tested (ie: a bottle of distilled water, medications/supplements, non-perishable foods). How can I get them to pursue the matter? I appreciate the fact that it is not such a high-priority case, like an actual murder, but I seriously believe that potential poisoning of a person's medication, food and water is serious enough to warrant an investigation. Seriously, PLEASE let me know if you have any viable suggestions.

S____ D___

---- Original Message -----
From: Martin Woock
To: S____ D____
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 5:04 PM
Subject: LMR Interest
Dear Ms. D____:
Further to our previous communications regarding interest on last month rent deposit (LMR), we have reviewed your account and are able to respond as follows:
The interest cheque that you received on September 11th, 2002 included compounded interest on your LMR from the commencement date of your tenancy right up to March 31st, 2002.
Your LMR account, including interest applied in March 2003, 2004 and 2005, presently stands at $677.13. After updating your LMR deposit to your current rent value of $621.68, a balance of $55.45 remains available for deduction from your rent cheque for December 2005.
In respect of the LMR interest for your earlier tenancy at apartment B2 @ 180 Queen Mary Road which you indicate ended in 1991, we are not able to determine what the final accounting was as the files for that period have been destroyed. We are required to keep files for 7 years after termination of a tenancy and they would have been destroyed after 1998.
In the interests of resolving this matter expeditiously, however, we are prepared to offer you a credit of $50.00 to offset any interest outstanding after LMR updates at the time. Our normal practice provides for a final accounting at the end of a tenancy, and calculations based on the information that you have furnished suggest that a balance of approximately $10.00 would have been available to apply to your final account. The $50.00 credit will be applied to your account and we suggest you add it to the deduction for LMR interest of $55.45 for a total deduction of $105.45 from December 2005 rent cheque.
Finally, we have requested rent receipts for the duration of your tenancy at your current address and will forward them by mail once they are available.
Yours truly,
Martin Woock.
End of E-mail to Martin Woock Dated November 30, 2005

DECEMBER 6, 2005 CONTACT, OVER THE PHONE, WITH CONSTABLE BREWER RE THE SEPT/05 BREAK-IN:

At 10:20 p.m. on Tuesday, December 6, 2005, I received a telephone call from Constable Harry Brewer of the Kingston Police Department at 549-4660, Extension 6237, regarding my report (KPD Incident #: 05-37793). He took the details of the break-in over the telephone, just as Alison had on November 8th. Neither he nor any other member of the Kingston Police Department has ever come to my apartment to file a report on the break-in(s) or view the site of the break-in, or to collect evidence. I reiterate, the only reports were taken over the telephone by Alison on November 8th, and then again by Constable Brewer over the telephone on December 6th, 2005.

I expressed to Constable Brewer, as I had previously to the two dispatchers at the Kingston Police Department, that not only was I concerned about the items that were stolen from my apartment, I was even more concerned about the potential contamination of foods, medication, water, etc. by a chemical, in an attempt to poison me. Just prior to the September 18, 2005 break-in, I had purchased a full unopened bottle of Boric Acid, which I had placed in the kitchen cupboard over the sink. I discovered that the bottle was almost totally emptied of the contents, when I inspected the apartment immediately after it was burglarized. I had not ever opened the bottle or used any of the contents. I advised him that the first dispatcher, on October 18th, told me that I should not have thrown out any of the items that may have been poisoned, because they could be tested. Then I added that I still had many of the items here (partial bottle of distilled water, vitamins/supplements, non-perishable food items, etc.), but he did not take any for testing, or even offer to take items for testing. He showed no interest in testing any of these items for poison.

Constable Brewer asked if there had been signs of forced entry into the apartment and I said no. I explained how a previous super (Pete McDonald) had changed the lock in 1998 and that the new lock (Shlage) was not compatible with the master key for the rest of the building (Weiser). When the new super arrived to have me sign the work order to change the lock (Oct. 17/05), he attempted to open the deadbolt lock with the master key for the building and told me it did not work. I further explained that I have never had a roommate or given/loaned my key to anyone, so no one obtained a copy of the key through me, and I have lived here since August 1994, so a previous tenant could not have a copy of my key. I advised him that the superintendent also confirmed that there were no visible signs of forced entry, when he changed my deadbolt lock on the morning of October 17, 2005 and I advised the Constable to contact the super if he wished to confirm this fact. I also told the officer that the new super advised me that he moved the keys for all of the tenant's apartments from the basement office to his apartment, and that he was changing locks on doors to which only he was supposed to have access. I later found out that all of the apartment keys in the building were going to be changed over a several month period, though Woock denied in an e-mail to me that this is not a knee-jerk reaction to my report of the break-in.

I advised Constable Brewer about the many problems I had in previous months with Rick St. Louis, common-law partner of then-acting super Marlene St. Louis. I told him how I filed a police report against a visibly inebriated Rick St. Louis, after he attempted to enter my apartment on two separate occasions (June 30 and July 29, 2005, KPD Incident #: 05-24431; report taken in person and on site by Constable Nadine Legare). Also, on June 3, 2005, I reported a very violent domestic disturbance between Marlene and Rick St. Louis, when they lived immediately below me in apartment 401. I then told him how I had to contact the super (their drinking buddy who referred Marlene to Homestead, which led to her employment as an assistant super, and later acting super when Bill Gilbert was fired in August/05), Bill Gilbert regarding another loud verbal altercation early the next morning. At approximately 11:00 p..m. on July 1st, when I was returning home, and in the lobby awaiting the arrival of the elevator, I saw Bill Gilbert (the super then) and Rick St. Louis, both visibly inebriated and staggering, leaving Gilbert's apartment and walking in my direction. From just feet away, as they got closer to me, I overheard Gilbert telling St. Louis that I was the person who reported him to the police on June 3rd. After I made even more written complaints to Woock, over the following weeks, about subsequent loud altercations in the St. Louis apartment, the St. Louis's were moved from 401 to 112.

Then I advised Constable Brewer that there were tenants in the building who, in all likelihood, knew details about the break-in (drinking buddies of Marlene and Rick St. Louis: Dave Vanhooser; the previous superintendent Bill Gilbert who moved in with Vanhooser when his employment was terminated in August, 2005 after the fire department confirmed for Woock that he had passed out drunk while cooking on three separate occasions; Kris Shillington; two female tenants and possibly other tenants), and added that because of "drunken bragging" eventually details about the break-in should or would eventually leak out. However, Constable Brewer did not offer to interview any of these, or any other, potential witnesses. Instead, he told ME to contact HIM if there were any further developments in my case. I told the officer that I had set up my videocamera and tried to "catch" the burglar should he return, but coincidentally there were no further attempts to break into my apartment after the St. Louis's were transferred to 204 Queen Mary Road very soon (about a week) after the current superintendent began working here.

I advised Constable Brewer that Rick St. Louis had the MEANS:
(1) Access to my apartment key, and all apartment and other keys in the building. He carried a full set of keys to the building, on him, at all times.
(2) Homestead supers have two televisions in their living rooms, one of which is supplied by Homestead, for the exclusive purpose of watching activity in the lobby via the videocamera, and Homestead also provides basic cable TV access though which the signal is delivered from the lobby. The lobby videocamera is angled, so that a view of the driveway is seen. This is most visible between dusk and dawn, or under certain circumstances, such as when there is snow on the ground. When I leave the property in my car, I always enter and exit the parking lot, via the driveway that runs directly in front of the building. When it is dark outside, my car (and other vehicles) are most recognizable.

Rick St. Louis had the OPPORTUNITY:
(1) I was out of the apartment, from approximately 8:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. on September 18, 2005. As I stated, I rarely leave the premises. When I do leave, it is not on any kind of a fixed schedule and I advise no one, especially anyone else in the building, in advance. Marlene, his common-law partner, was the acting super at the time.

Rick St. Louis had the MOTIVE (MANY MOTIVES IN FACT):
(1) The report I had filed against him with the Kingston Police Department, for trying to enter my apartment twice when drunk (KPD Incident #05-24431).
(2) The violent domestic disturbance that I reported to Kingston Police on June 3rd.
(3) I reported numbers 1 and 2, plus numerous other subsequent domestic disturbances to Woock at Homestead, in writing, until Woock moved them to Apt. 112.
(4) Many other written complaints, to the rental office, that I filed against Marlene, with Woock. Some of these included one evening when I videotaped her, via the lobby camera, walking by a first floor tenant who was smoking a cigarette in the lobby, and she did not stop him or speak to him. I filed another complaint, when she refused to respond to a noise disturbance call when she was ACTUALLY ON DUTY (she was only on DUTY during alternating weekends and refused to work even then!!!!!), even after I paged her numerous times. No one ever told me what excuse she used for not attending the noise complaint, even when Woock replied, stating that he had spoken with her about it. There were other complaints.
(5) Rick and his drinking buddies (Shillington, Vanhooser, and other tenants in this building; as well as other Homestead supers like Elsie and husband Arnold Davis, Esther and husband Rick Legere, and tenants in other buildings on Parkway) blamed me when Bill Gilbert got fired in early August, 2005. Hey, I was not the one who was drinking on duty, in the daytime on weekdays, in 509! I even reported, in writing to the rental office, at least one incident in 2004 when he was very drunk in the mid-afternoon!

I had filed countless written/verbal complaints to Lambert, Minnes, and Woock at the rental office, about Gilbert's drinking on the job, his refusal to act on noise complaints, and other complaints too numerable to mention. Gilbert got fired when, for the third time (Sat., Aug. 6, 2005), the fire department had to be called to the building in the middle of the night, after Gilbert got drunk and passed out while cooking. This was a definite fire hazard and each time the building filled with smoke and an acrid stench. Woock had been notified in writing about the second incident, that occurred in early 2004, but had not acted upon it. Then later in August, because I leave the building so infrequently, I did not find out that Gilbert had been fired, until Woock told me in an e-mail about one week after the fact.

End of Discussion with Const. Brewer Re: Sept./05 Break-In. Following is Discussion With Neighbour Re: St. Louis:

Since speaking with Constable Brewer, I spoke with a neighbour one day, when we met in the parking lot. He confirmed for me that he too had seen the common-law partner of Marlene St. Louis (who was the acting super after Gilbert was terminated, until the new super was hired and began working in Sept./05 (14th I believe), named Rick St. Louis carrying on his person a set of keys for the entire building. He then added that a skinny adult male border (his words, not mine) of the St. Louis's also carried a full set of keys to the building. Both males were seen, by him and others in the building, using these keys to enter areas of the building, which were only supposed to be accessed by the superintendent, but neither of them was employed by Homestead Land Holdings Limited. The neighbour further advised me that he was told that both Rick and the skinny male (again his words, not mine) were both Marlene's borders. It appears that Marlene is collecting government benefits (for herself and her son). Rick is supposedly collecting benefits of his own, at another address as far as I can tell. The other "border" is employed by a cleaning contractor, and works the night shift at Super C, 1225 Princess St., Kingston.

The neighbour and I discussed that Homestead moved the St. Louis's to one of their other buildings, at 204 Queen Mary Road. (Marlene is an assistant super in that building. Homestead even paid for their moving expenses yet again, having paid expenses for the move from Apt. 401 to 112, but this time also the moving company.) He then told me that Homestead was forced to move them, because many tenants on Parkway had complained to Homestead that Marlene's son was bullying kids in the building and townhouses, telling the neighbourhood kids that his father was the super!

The St. Louis's appeared to be "trouble tenants" from the beginning. They moved to the building, at 154 Parkway, and into Apartment 209 in March of 2005. I do not know whether they were Bill Gilbert's drinking buddies before they moved here or quickly became Gilbert's drinking buddies soon after they moved here! Either way, for some reason, they moved to Apt. 401 on June 1/05. I can only surmise as to why they moved. Kris Shillington told me on June 3/05 that they had moved, because they needed more room. This could have been, because the fellow who works with the cleaning contractor at Super C (Soon to become Food Basics) on Princess St., Kingston, moved in with St. Louis as a border. Maybe previous neighbours were also sick and tired of the constant, almost daily, violent altercations. If tenants tried to file complaints against the St. Louis's, then it is most likely that Gilbert kept covering those complaints against them, by not reporting them to the rental office.

The police appeared to know who they were. Two days after they moved to 401, directly beneath my apartment, I had to report a very violent domestic disturbance to Kingston Police on June 3/05. There was much door slamming, use of profanity (THAT WOULD MAKE A "SAILOR ON SHORE LEAVE BLUSH") by both Marlene and Rick, and it sounded like items were being thrown and smashed.

Shortly after police left them, yet another drinking buddy, Kris Shillington in 407, was banging on my door. Because Gilbert constantly divulged confidential tenant information, being particularly loose-lipped when he was drinking (WHICH COINCIDENTALLY WAS ALMOST EVERY DAY), Kris assumed after talking with Rick St. Louis that I had phoned the police. Kris was already drunk, so he confronted me about it. He insisted that they were his good friends. All drunked-up, he was getting emotional and going on, over and over, with "They are my friends." and "I helped them move to 401.", "He thought that she called the cops and threatened to walk out, but I talked him out of it.", etc, etc. etc.

I had no way of knowing that they were his friends. All I was concerned about, was the fact that neighbours were cursing and swearing, and slamming doors and throwing things! Because I have known Kris, as a neighbour for some time, I did not report to Woock that he was the tenant, that had interfered and confronted me about the police report. Also, because of him, I did not telephone the police the next morning, when the violent altercation erupted YET AGAIN, or when subsequent altrcations ensued. IN RETROSPECT, I WISH I HAD. After many more altercations, Homestead Land Holdings did nothing, except reward Marlene with employment, as Gilbert's assistant super. Even working alternate weekends, she did nothing. Well, that was how Gilbert operated!

Finally, after I reported even more loud and violent altercations in their apartment (in writing to Woock), and the fact that Rick tried to get into my apartment twice (Kingston Police Incident # 05-23341), Homestead moved them to Apt. 112 (Gilbert's apartment), moving Gilbert to 110, paying all moving expenses (tranferring phone, cable, hydro, and other services). That was a little over two months after they moved to Apt. 401! Very soon after that, Homestead paid their expenses, even hiring the moving company, and moved them to 204 Queen Mary Road a short time later, in September (approximately a week after the new super started working here on the 14th)!

WHO KNOWS HOW MANY TIMES THEY WERE FORCED TO MOVE BEFORE COMING TO 154 PARKWAY, BUT IN ABOUT FIVE MONTHS, THEY MOVED THREE TIMES, WITHIN THIS BUILDING! I CAN ONLY GUESS IT WAS BECAUSE OF THE VIOLENT ALTERCATIONS, LIKE THOSE THAT I WAS FORCED TO LISTEN TO, ALL THE WEEKS THAT THEY WERE IN APT. 401!!! So Woock moved them and gave Marlene a job as assistant super at 204 Queen Mary Road in Kingston. The tenants there are the ones, who have to worry about Rick breaking into their apartments. Woock was forewarned. The thing is, at least many of the tenants in that building can afford to hire a lawyer, when a pass key is used to break into their apartments.

SECOND UPDATE FROM KITTEN ON FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2006:

Is there anybody else out there who thinks that my landlord is HARASSING AND TRYING TO INTIMIDATE ME????? AS IF IT IS NOT BAD ENOUGH THAT THEY ARE TRYING TO EVICT ME, BECAUSE OF THE CONTENTS OF MY BLOG, THEY ARE TRYING TO SAY THAT "THE CONTENT OF THIS WEB SITE IS HARASSING, LIBELOUS, DEFAMATORY AND CONTRAVENES P.I.P.E.D.A." WHEN I WAS TOLD PERSONALLY BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF CANADA PRIVACY COMMISSIONER THAT P.I.P.E.D.A. DOES NOT REGULATE PERSONAL BLOGS, WHICH THIS IS!!!!! IT WAS NOT BAD ENOUGH that they lied at the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal case I filed against them years ago (hearing was Jan. 2/01), which was why I started this blog in the first place, just prior to Homestead illegally forcing Lycos.Inc to shut down my original website at http://kingstonkittens.tripod.com.

I can still prove that they did not have to get into my apartment, in 2000. Maurice Therrien testified that he had to access air intake valves in my apartment, to bleed air from the lines. Lambert put the same information in her affidavit. WELL, there have never been air intake valves in the apartment, or any apartment in this building. Doug Werden, the City of Kingston Property Standards Officer proved that. He personally told me that all of the air intake valves are on the roof of this building. Also, when they finally fixed the master bedroom radiator, after initially refusing when the painter reported that the radiator was not working when he treated the mould on Dec. 31/05 and in early January when I also reported that it was not working, Maurice Therrien eventually fixed the radiator by opening the valve on the roof. WHO KNOWS JUST HOW LONG THAT VALVE HAD BEEN TURNED OFF!!! I had contacted Mr. Werden about the apartment being very cold once before, nearly two years earlier, in January of 2003. SHALL I CONTINUE???

AS IF IT IS NOT BAD ENOUGH that Homestead refused to do vital repairs to the apartment (especially replacing the disintegrating asbestos floor tiles and replacing very warped drafty windows for 10 1/2 years), even though I repeatedly and continually went through the proper channels.

AS IF IT IS NOT BAD ENOUGH that they refused to offer any financial compensation for all of the personal items that were destroyed by toxic mould (OVER $6,200 WORTH, and that is an estimate from April, 2005, MOSTLY CLOTHING, BEDDING AND WINDOW COVERINGS) when there was a leak in the roof of their building and water was blowing under the flashing (as relayed to me by Bill Gilbert, after Williams Brothers inspected and repaired the roof, and advised Gilbert).

I am still using green trash bags and dollar store shower curtain liners as window coverings, and the bedding I am forced to use is full of holes, because Woock refused to help replace any of the items destroyed by the toxic mould (in spite of the fact that I personally asked Cheryl Lambert to help replace these items when she was here for the December 30, 2004 toxic mould inspection, when she told me directly to my face that she would help replace them, which I also relayed to Woock in writing) and, in an e-mail, he refused to pay for the items that were stolen and the many items I had to discard, because of potential chemical poisoning when the break-in occurred, unless I can prove that Homestead Land Holdings Limited was responsible for the security breach.

What do you think? Remember, the common-law partner of Marlene St. Louis (Rick) and the border were both seen carrying a set of keys to the building and were also seen using them to enter areas designated as only accessible by the superintendents. Rick St. Louis held many grudges against me, for reporting his June 3/05 domestic disturbance to police and subsequent altercations to Homestead which prompted them to move St. Louis and "family - border included"; for filing Police report (KPD Incident #05-24431) against him for trying to enter my apartment twice when drunk; for miscellaneous other complaints I made in writing to Woock about he and Marlene.).

AS IF IT IS NOT BAD ENOUGH that Cheryl Lambert blasted me over the phone when I told her that I had not one, but two (2) witnesses, who were in the room and heard Bill Gilbert say I was the "FAT BITCH IN 501 (Bill Gilbert's words, not mine) that he wanted out of the building" in January of 2003 in Dave Vanhooser's apartment, while Gilbert was there sucking back beer in the early afternoon of a week- "work" day, an incident I even reported to Woock in writing.

AS IF IT IS NOT BAD ENOUGH that action was not taken on many noise and other complaints I made, in writing and still have, to the Johnson St. rental office.

AS IF IT IS NOT BAD ENOUGH that very, very, very soon after I reported to Woock in writing that I overheard Gilbert tell Rick St. Louis that I was the person who reported St. Louis's June 3, 2005 violent domestic disturbance to the Kingston Police Department, two days after St. Louis moved in to 401 directly beneath me, that I found a new series of scratches in the paint on the right rear passenger door of my poor little abused car (which I reported to Woock in an e-mail, but he refused to help pay for the damages to my personal property).

If I tried to ask other tenants if they witnessed this or other things like the break-in on September 18/05, or posted a notice seeking witnesses, then Homestead would use that as an excuse to evict me. Several years ago, a tenant on the 2nd floor personally told me that he was threatened with eviction, when he tried to find witnesses in the building, to help substantiate his complaints.

AS IF IT WAS NOT BAD ENOUGH that after I reported numerous times in writing to the rental office (Lambert, Minnes, and Woock) that kids were playing between parked cars in the parking lot, which is potentially very dangerous, that they finally posted a notice on a sheet of paper stating that kids should not play between parked cars (posted at the front door initially; as of now is posted by the back exit and in the laundry room), which no one enforces to this day, by the way. Just last week, kids erected a ramp over a concrete divider in the parking lot, between parked cars. They were riding very fast between other parked cars, in order to gain momentum and jump their ramp. They were soon joined by two adult males, on bicycles of course, from one of the townhouses.; AS IF IT IS NOT BAD ENOUGH that Homestead denies all responsibility for the break-in that occurred in my apartment on September 18, 2005, denying that it was someone who had access to the tenant's keys, even though Rick St. Louis had a set of keys to the building, being the common-law partner of the assistant, then later acting, super Marlene St. Louis. I have never given or loaned a copy of my key to anyone, and have never had a roommate. The super changed the lock in 1998, so a previous tenant could not have the key. WHO ELSE COULD HAVE BROKEN INTO MY APARTMENT AND MORE THAN LIKELY POISONED MY WATER, FOOD, MEDS/SUPPLEMENTS WITH BORIC ACID, THEN RE-LOCKED MY DOOR WHEN LEAVING, ESPECIALLY WHEN I DO NOT EVEN GO OUT VERY OFTEN? The bottle of boric acid was full when I bought it just prior to the break-in, and I found the bottle almost totally empty when I inspected it right after the break-in, and I have never used it.

I ASK OF YOU, WHICH PARTY IS HARRASSING AND INTIMIDATING THE OTHER, "PENNILESS PHYSICALLY DISABLED ON A FIXED PENSION WITH NO POWERFUL RICH FRIENDS, LAWYERS OR POLITICIANS IN MY "BACK POCKET" SELF-ADMITTEDLY NO NUCLEAR PHYSICIST ALBEIT NOT PARANOID, NOT STUPID ENOUGH TO LIE IN WRITING, AND NOT PRONE TO CONFABULATION WIDOWED 46 YEAR OLD FEMALE" ME OR THE "GIANT GOLIATH-LIKE BUSINESS THAT IS WORTH OVER TWO BILLION DOLLARS ($2,000,000,000.00) THAT AUTOMATICALLY DENIES RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY AND ALL WRONG-DOING ON THEIR BEHALF AND WHO FORCE THE LEGAL(??????) AND/OR ILLEGAL "SHUT-DOWN" OF ANY WEBSITE OR OTHER MEANS OF REPORTING TO THE PUBLIC THAT PROVE JUST HOW HORRIBLY, DEPLORABLY, AND SADISTICALLY THEY TREAT THEIR TENANTS, ESPECIALLY THE FINANCIALLY-CHALLENGED AND/OR PHYSICALLY WEAK TENANTS, WHOM HAVE NO FINANCIAL OR OTHER MEANS TO FIGHT BACK OR OTHERWISE DEFEND THEMSELVES, POSSIBLY MORALLY BANKRUPT" HOMESTEAD LAND HOLDINGS LIMITED????? I shall allow you to decide for yourself.

UPDATE: FEBRUARY 16, 2006: I am transcribing, in verbatim, two documents. The first is the Lambert's Affidavit to the ORHT on January 2, 2001. The second is the order, issued by MacInnis, on January 5, 2001.

Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal AFFIDAVIT File Number EAT-02346
This documented was presented to Ian MacInnis, by Bailiff Paul Fudge, at the hearing on January 2, 2001:

I, Cheryl Lambert, of the City of Kingston, in the County of Frontenac make oath and say as follows:

1) I am the Property Manager for 154 Parkway Street, Kingston, and have knowledge of the matters herein disposed to.
2) In late August or early September 2000 I was present at 154 Parkway Street, Kingston, performing a monthly inspection of this building.
3) Two employees of Williams Brothers Restoration, who specialize in water infiltration problems, approached myself and the building superintendent, Elsie Davis to advise that they needed access to apartment 501 to resolve a water leak in the building. The water leak was affecting apartment 401 & 301 at 154 Parkway Street.
4) The four of us attended at apartment 501 and Elsie Davis knocked on the door several times. She did not receive a response.
5) Elsie Davis then advised me that we had been given permission to enter apartment 501 to do repairs regarding the water leak.
6) Elsie Davie then unlocked the door of apartment 501 and was met by S___ D___ who was very angy and asked "what's going on".
7) I advised S___ D___ that there must have been a misunderstanding as we believed that we had permission to enter her unit.
8) I apologized and asked if we could enter her unit to do the repair. She then allowed entry into her unit.
9) I advised S___ D___ that she would be given 24 hours notice for entry in the future unless an emergency occurred.
10) I am advised by Maurice Therrien, a provincially licensed heating contractor, and I verily believe it to be true, that when the heating system broke down December 7th that an emergency situation existed and access had to be gained to the top 4 top corner units at 154 Parkway Street, Kingston, unit 501 being one of the top corner units.
11) Entry had to be gained to unit 501 on December 7th and December 14th as a result of the heating system breakdown to ensure that the system was bled of air so that the heating system in the building would be fully operational. If the system was not operational entire sections of the building would be without heat.
12) I am unable to attend this hearing as I had previously booked a vacation and will be in Europe from December 29th, until January 5th, 2001.
13) I make this affidavit for the purpose of obtaining an adjournment until I return or in the alternative having my evidence considered by the Tribunal and for no other improper purpose.
End of Affidavit

This Affidavit was presented, during the hearing, by Homestead Land Holding Limited's Bailiff, Paul Fudge to MacInnis. It was accepted by Ian MacInnis. EVEN THOUGH MACINNIS AND ORHT ACCEPTED THIS DOCUMENT AS EVIDENCE AT THE HEARING, THEY REFUSED TO ALLOW ME TO USE IT, TO APPEAL THE ORDER.

In para. 3 Lambert states that access is needed to my apartment to resolve a water leak. As stated previously in my Blog, Elsie was here three weeks earlier. She told me that Williams Brothers Restoration would be in the following week, and the repairs they had to make were "outside" the building. She added that someone may have to come in to my apartment after that, to caulk above the windows. I assumed that the matter had been dealt with weeks earlier and that no one had to come to my apartment. I never gave her carte blanche (or would ever give anyone carte blanche) permission to enter, not even being sure that someone would have to caulk the windows.

In paras. 3-5 Lambert states that Elsie knocked on the door and, upon getting no answer, advised that I had given permission to enter, and used her pass key. I ASK, WHY DID ELSIE HAVE MY KEY ON HER 'IN THE FIRST PLACE, IF SHE HAD NOT INTENDED TO USE IT FOR A NON-EMERGENT PURPOSE'????? The master key for the building would not open my door. My lock was Shlage and the rest of the locks were Weiser! There was no crucial OR emergency repair, just the possibility that they might have to caulk above the living room windows. Elsie had advised me three weeks earlier that the leak repairs to be made were "outside" the building.

In para. 9 Lambert stated that in future I would be given 24 hours notice, "unless an emergency occurred". Well, this is a right """allegedly""" afforded to me under the TPA.

In paras. 11-12 Lambert stated that Therrien advised her that there was a "heating emergency". "Entry had to be gained to unit 501 on December 7th and December 14th as a result of the heating system breakdown to ensure that the system was bled of air, so that the heating system in the building would be fully operational." and if not "entire sections of the building would be without heat". Why did Elsie try to use her key on the 7th and 14th. When I caught her using her key on the 14th, she admitted, to me, that she also used her key on the 7th. If there was an emergency, then why did she not telephone me (at the hearing she said she did not have my phone number; my call display still shows her phoning me on Sept. 23/00 at 8:00 p.m. and I have a carbon copy of a letter that she requested regarding a noise complaint, in which I mention that phone call) or have the office staff phone me (they have ALWAYS had my number on file), leave a note on or under my door, or in my mailbox, or find any countless number of ways to contact me. The thing is, she came to the door, with the pre-conceived plan to unlock my door, no matter what. BELIEVE ME, I asked these and many more questions at the hearing, but was repeatedly stonewalled by MacInnis. He was verbally abusive to me throughout the whole hearing.

SOME FURTHER INFORMATION TO CONSIDER: The building was erected in 1959, according to the corner stone, and the same heating system is in use today, that was installed back then. There are not now, nor have there ever been, "air intake valves" located in any apartment at 154 Parkway. The "air intake valves", which are used to bleed the system of air, are on the roof of the building. I was informed of this fact by the City of Kingston Property Standards Officer, Doug Werden, and it can be confirmed by Mr. Werden or any heating contractor. When Therrien fixed my bedroom rad, on January 12th, 2005, after Mr. Werden ordered Homestead to fix the rad after they repeatedly refused (Toxic Mould found Dec. 26/04, see above), he had to go to the roof to fix it, and reported to me that the valve had been closed.

Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal Order under Section 35 Tenant Protection Act, 1997 File Number EAT-02346

In the Matter of: 501 - 154 Parkway, Kingston ON K7M 3E7
Between: S____ D___ Tenant
and Homestead Land Holdings Ltd. Landlord

S____ D___ applied for an order to determine whether Homestead Land Holdings Ltd. entered the rental unit illegally.
This application was heard in Kingston on January 2, 2001.

It is determined that:
1. The Landlord attempted to enter the unit on two occasions in the month of December, 2000. The attempted entries were justified due to an emergency situation involving the failure of the complex's heating system and the potential for water pipes to freeze.
2. At no time did the landlord actually enter the unit without the Tenant's permission.
3. Therefore, I find that Homestead Land Holdings Ltd. did not enter the rental unit illegally.

Issue of Costs:
The tenant has resided at this complex for six years. Apart from this application, the tenant has never filed an application against this landlord for illegal entry. Notwithstanding the fact that the landlord attempted to explain the reason for wishing to gain entry, the tenant proceeded with the application. Based on all of the evidence, I find that the landlord acted reasonably and responsibly in dealing with the emergency situation that arose in the first weeks of December, 2000. Why the tenant did not or would not accept the landlord's right to gain entry in such circumstances is difficult to understand. In the tenant's application, she indicates she is seeking an apology from the landlord and an abatement of rent in the amount of $2,115.08, which is the equivalent of a 100% abatement of four months' rent. The tenant is unable to substantiate her claim. The tenant unnecessarily caused the landlord to expend staff time and expense in preparing for and appearing at the hearing of this application. The landlord's legal represenative, in my view, quite reasonably asks for costs at the Guideline rate of $75.00 times 5.5 hours.

It is ordered that:
1. S____ D___'s application is dismissed.
2. S____ D___ shall pay costs to the landlord in the amount of $412.50. This amount shall be paid on or before January 15, 2001, failing which the tenant shall owe interest on the unpaid balance at a rate of 7.00% per annum comencing January 16, 2001.

January 2, 2001 Ian MacInnis's signature
Date Issued Ian MacInnis
Member, Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal
Easter District, 4th Floor, 255 Albert Street, Ottawa ON K1P 6A9
If you have any questions about this order, call 1-888-332-3234.
End of Order

Please note, in my application for the hearing, I explicitly stated that the superintendent illegally used her key, on three separate occasions, to deliberately ATTEMPT to enter the apartment, without my prior knowledge and/or consent. Each time, she unlocked the deadbolt and pushed her body against the door repeatedly, trying to open the door. The only reason why she did not gain entry to the apartment each time, was because I had engaged a barrel bolt lock (sliding keyless bolt that a previous tenant installed in lieu of a chain guard, which can only be engaged from inside). I never stated that the superintendent entered my unit illegally, I stated that she made illegal attempts to gain entry. HOW DO I KNOW? WELL, I was in bed and she awakened me with, not her alleged knocking on the door, but with the noise from repeatedly engaging the deadbolt and throwing her body against the door.

Earlier in this Blog, I summed up what happened at the hearing. Throughout the hearing, MacInnis was abrasive, rude, condescending, obnoxious, and abusive towards me. He did not even attempt to conceal his blatant contempt for me. At one point, he asked why I had never filed a complaint against the landlord before, for illegally entering my apartment. I replied simply that, I had never caught a superintendent illegally using a key before. At another point, he asked why was I now causing trouble for the landlord, after having lived there for six years. I simply replied that I was not trying to cause trouble for the landlord.

Feedback is graciously welcomed. No SPAM please.



OTHER BLOGS TO CHECK OUT:

http://terrorizethetenant.blogspot.com/

http://kingstonkittens5.blogspot.com/

http://homesteadlandholdings.blogspot.com/

http://homesteadlandholdingsltd.blogspot.com/