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
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
posted by Kitten @ 12:54 a.m.
4 comments
