Dear Landlord and Tenant Board, Mark Melchers, Marija Pavic:
I am responding to the member's endorsement in two parts, the "Application to Reschedule" and "the Application for an In-Person Hearing".
APPLICATION TO RESCHEDULE
I confirm receipt of the sitting member's denial of our Motion to Reschedule a Hearing filed electronically at approx 1427EDT on Jul12. We received the sitting member's denial at approx 1017EDT on Jul22 despite our having requested a response "..within 48-hrs of 1500H on Jul12, or by no later than end of day (1700H) on Jul14." That's at least 7-days later than expeditiously requested, and so will be factored into our continuing processes.
Despite the provisions that the Social Justice Tribunals of Ontario that the Tribunal will only grant adjournment in extraordinary circumstances, we put it to the court that Sean Henry erred by denying our application to reschedule, and is acting in a fashion contrary to the well-established legal precedents for family bereavement. This leads me to believe that the sitting member is either incompetent, or is acting in a purely malicious nature towards the grieving parties.
-  The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests, and Requests for Adjournments states that the Tribunal discourages last minute requests for an adjournment because they are a significant impediment to fair and timely access to justice. Consequently, the Tribunal will only grant adjournments in extraordinary circumstances.
As confirmed in Espinoza v. The Napanee Beaver Limited, Mustafa v. Corporation of the City of Mississauga, Chmurzewski v. Natural Touch Rehabilitation Center, the death of mother or mother-in-law constitutes extraordinary circumstances. As such, I request that our initial request be immediately granted, and that there be an additional extension of at least 7-days to account for our being unreasonably forced to compensate for the professional incompetence of the sitting member, Sean Henry.
APPLICATION FOR AN IN-PERSON HEARING
“The Tribunal shall not hold an electronic hearing if a party satisfies the Tribunal that holding an electronic rather than an oral hearing is likely to cause the party significant prejudice."
The Tribunal states:
- In the request, the Tenants state, without elaboration, that they require an in-person hearing as an accommodation. While the Tenants are not required to disclose personal medical information in support of the request, without an explanation as to why an electronic hearing is likely to cause them significant prejudice or why their accommodation needs cannot be met by an electronic hearing, I am unable to determine that the concerns raised by the Tenants are not most appropriately addressed in the context of an electronic hearing.
In his endorsement, the sitting member confirms that the Tribunal is provided "..with broad powers to determine the format of hearings as it considers appropriate" the sitting member chooses to further demean and unreasonably prejudice these proceedings against the Applicants by forcing them to elaborate on open channels and not in a separate merits hearing, on the nature of any prejudicial encumbrance or physical disability the Applicants are alleging necessitates an In-Person Hearing.
Rather than severing the Motion for Accommodation from the general proceedings, the Tribunal chose deal with the matter in the current open proceedings, a fashion which is likely to provide opposing counsel (Mr Melchers and Ms Pavic) with an undue advantage in further proceedings. I feel that is very improper conduct for the Tribunal to facilitate. It's almost like Mr Henry wants to ensure that there are sufficient grounds for an appeal to higher court.
If I am making an Application for an In-Person hearing because to do so otherwise would cause me significant prejudice, does it stand to reason that I must make Virtual Application in the very same form that is likely to prejudice the proceedings untoward myself? Do you understand the lack of logic in such a situation? The proper course of action would have been to create an individual thread of proceedings for the Applicant "..to disclose personal medical information in support of the request" in a confidential setting, and not before opposing Counsel, which is known as providing the adversary with private medical information reasonably expected to cause further emotional distress to the Applicant.
Why am I required to provide my Personal Health Information to the enemy, Medallion Properties, to further malign and subject me to vexatious threatened litigation for posting fulsome and complete signage which contradicts their own previous partial and incomplete signage? I require an in-person hearing in order for Medallion not to further distort and wrongly apply Municipal Bylaws and Provincial Regulations, and to do so in a fulsome nature, not limited to one (voice) or two (camera) dimensions. To make defence in any fashion less than three dimensions (in-person) would further prejudice these matters against the Applicant.
I am having difficulty with these unreasonable constraints on our mourning the death of our mother, and the proper settlement of her estate. I outlined for your consideration the timeline required for myself to consult with legal and make more fulsome answer in this matter.
Actually, now that you've forced me to explain the impropriety of Medallion's position at this most grievous of times as we mourn our mother and attempt to settle her estate in a timely fashion, you probably don't have jurisdiction for this matter with its Constitutional nuance (see Rosa Parks & Facial Nudity, as the vexatious legal action since 2020Oct02) of Sherbourne Site began with their retaliatory quasi-litigation against my wife and I for our inability to wear a mask or other acceptable face covering as a plastic bag, a hijab, or a similarly restrictive muzzle.
It's a good idea to play by the rules, my friends. And you will please confirm of this message in a timely fashion.
Chad, Solutions Architect
Internet Security, Operations and Intelligence
Tel: +1 716-608-3531
- Marija Pavic, Lead Counsel for Medallion Properties Eviction Squad
- Mark Melchers, Vexatious Litigation Specialist for Cohen Highley LLP
- Rob Roberts, Editor in Chief for Nation Post