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.
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.
posted by Kitten @ 10:24 a.m.
2 comments
