LANDLORD’S ONE PAGE INTRO TO TENANT’S ANSWER (AKA:“Motion for Summary Judgement”
I’m not a lawyer, but I have represented myself a number of times in courts including in a multi-million dollar law suit in America where my lawyer ended up getting disbarred midway through the trial, with other lawyers demanding US$25,000.00 up front to read the file and prepare to go to court from there.
I could have simply run back to Canada and avoided the whole thing but my partner in the project at the time as well as his lawyers were legally ill-prepared to defend him in an Intellectual Property suit, and I just hate seeing cons get away with conning innocent people so I stuck around to help with the case where his lawyers commended my legal awareness on the topic and impressed with my work.
But in this LTB case both LTB Hearings that we were required to attend were alleged to be attempts at Ontario’s legal system seeking to have justice prevail and in the process exposed LTB’s ugly underbelly that consists of absolute dysfunction.
No mechanism for Motions were made available to us (defendants) prior to any Hearing and that took a year to arrange and was then delayed another six months based solely on a lie introduced by the tenant and LTB working just a half day when our turn came up. The LTB at the second Hearing actually and without either party even requesting it, offered voluntarily without either asking to delay that Hearing also!
If conventional justice system mechanisms that should have been in place were in place, the landlords would have within 30 days submitted what is called a Motion for Summary Judgement (after pleadings are submitted, either party may bring a motion for Summary Judgment by moving under Rule 20 of Ontario law 900194#BK159 Rules of Civil Procedure, but apparently not when LTB is or gets involved).
Courts of law, can grant Summary Judgment (either siding with the plaintiff and granting Judgment on their claim, or siding with the defendant and dismissing the claim – if the Court is satisfied that there is no genuine issue requiring a trial).
In this case the evidence shows that the tenant’s clearly and wilfully filed a Bad Faith T2. The tenant’s own emails fully contradicted each and every allegation set out in his filing. There could be no doubt but that he was willfully lying to LTB in a legal proceeding which in itself constitutes the criminal act of Public Mischief (don’t let the name fool you it is serious criminal conduct that allegedly could lead to jail).
With LTB the Filing party (in this case the tenant) submits their Claim (Pleading) using the LTB’s standard/required legal T2 Form which is completed and submitted to LTB where it is considered legally “served” onto the landlord.
Observably, in this matter no-one at LTB ever read the landlord’s Answer, verified any allegations or validity of any alleged evidence, and/or objectively evaluates the case. There apparently is no mechanism in place to allow an innocent aggrieved party to even notify or communicate effectively with the LTB.
Going before the LTB is simply procedural until such time as a Hearing is attended so it is reasonable to conclude that the entire process is limited to the Chairperson hearing each party’s verbal representations and deciding who is at fault. Apparently they are not interested to know if anyone is outright lying. It is no wonder that LTB has been clogged up with massive backlogs of cases!
Despite hiring and paying for legal counsel, my attempts to submit a motion for summary judgement landed on deaf ears and the file sat idol for well over a year, up to just a couple weeks before the Hearing where a defendant is instructed “to formally Answer the Tenant’s allegations in his T2” (the Answering party has up to seven days prior to the Hearing to submit their Answer).
In this matter, due to the length and detailed evidence included in the landlord’s Answer, we felt it appropriate to give LTB additional days to read it, especially this one page Introduction (below) that would have been our Motion for Summary Judgement. They observably did not even read our Answer.
One apparent flaw in our thinking rested on our confidence that LTB would be professionally aware of all the facts at least the tenant’s Claim and the facts set out in the landlord’s Answer, understanding that LTB would actually read both party’s submissions. Apparently and according to the Chairperson, this type of logical assumption is not advisable when seeking justice at the LTB.
So, here is what would have been our Motion For Summary Judgement that we prepared on the day we received the T2 (18 months prior), as the facts were so glaringly obvious that the matter should have been thrown out on the spot. This shows why there is such a massive backlog at LTB!
Hear is the actual One Page Intro that would have constituted the landlord’s Motion for Summary Judgement earlier if LTB offered such a thing, and should have resolved the case had LTB actually read our Answer equating to 2 serious failures at LTB
INTRODUCTION
The tenant is seeking a “Rent Abatement of 50% of ten (10) months rent ($25,000.00) alleging the Abatement was due to the concrete deck not being present when he took occupancy” (See T2 Word Document Allegation #7) and that the tenant did not have use of the rear yard during his tenancy.
The tenant’s own emails (see below) show him acknowledging that “the deck was not to be installed until the following spring”. He also falsely alleged that the Landlord tried to improperly evict him”.
The lease itself exposed this allegation to be patently false (the deck was included in the lease simply to avoid any confusion when the contractor showed up in the spring and tore out the rear yard), and the Tenant’s April 30/22 email, renders the entire T2 “Moot” due to the tenant stating: “Last year you told us . . you were first on the list for this year ”.
Further on March 26th, the tenant, had emailed the landlord: “I assume this to mean you are not putting in the concrete deck as promised either”.
The entire Bad Faith T2 is fully exposed in Allegation #7 of the tenant’s T2 Word Document where the tenant claims that “the deck was supposed to be installed prior to his occupancy” showing him wilfully lying.
On May 10th tenant’s email shows him acknowledging receipt of the deck contractor’s “‘weather permitting’ Time Window to commence in mid May through June 2022” and Tenant’s reply “thanks for the update”. There was no claim of the deck not having been built prior to him taking occupancy 8 months earlier.
Tenant is alleging “not having had use of the backyard”. Landlord’s email informing the tenant “You need to remove all the furniture . . and pick up after your dog“ and tenant’s reply: “Yes everything was removed as the landlords thought he was coming yesterday” contradicting this false allegation by showing that the tenant had enjoyed full and unobstructed use of the backyard and that he has wilfully lied to LTB.
Due to tenant’s constant ALL CAPS threats and hostile behaviour, and refusal to allow landlord’s access to their property to measure the basement to get a Permit, the landlords were required to cancel the N13 to avoid the tenant using the lack of a Permit as proof of the landlord’s alleged bad faith actions.
The landlords built-out the basement following tenant voluntarily vacating the home on Oct 18th. tenant is also seeking $10,000 in moving expenses which he is not entitled to. Had the tenant co- operated with the N13 he may have been entitled to $5,000 but the tenant refused to co-operate.
The evidence set out in this one page Introduction, contradicts and negates tenant’s claims:
a) Landlords tried to improperly evict”; b) Rent Abatement issue; c) moving costs issue
The landlords also submit herewith their Answers to each of tenant’s 15 allegations set out in tenant’s T2 word doc with detailed evidence attached, showing tenant’s systemic abuse and harassment of the landlords, and willful and intentional misleading of LTB, in his fabricated scheme to financially exploit landlords (seeking to avoid $12,500.00 in Rent Arrears + $25,000 Rent Abatement + $10k moving costs).
Landlords respectfully ask LTB to sanction tenant and have the tenant offset landlord’s legal costs incurred to defend against tenant’s baseless claims, (see LTB’s T2 Form “Important Information” page 9 paragraphs #3 & #4 – invoices – Ref legal 1; legal 2; and Filing Costs).
Landlord’s INTRO page clearly shows that tenant’s entire T2 is disingenuous and has been filed in bad faith and as a result the tenant’s T2 is rendered moot.
THE GOAL IS TO RAISE $500,000.00 TO FIX THIS
Legal Defence Fund plus establish consumer protection agency
A. Having 25,000 Canadian Patriots invest in and read their copy of this ebook: “LTB . . . Unfair, Unjust & Un-Canadian” @ $20 and after reading it simply spread the word; OR
B. Have that same 25,000 Canadian Patriots invest in both “LTB . . . Unfair, Unjust & Un-Canadian” and “Justice Refused” reducing the number of supporters needed to 12,500; OR
C. Have 5,000 Canadian Patriots join our “Founder’s Club” investing $100, receiving both these ebooks and all future ebooks in this series without further investment. Founders will also be identified in each ebook and they are a landlord being exploited FREE advice on dealing with their situation;
