OFFICIAL COPY OF LTB’S FINAL RULING
The absolute most compelling evidence in this entire dysfunctional clowns show shows that it all starts and finishes with the Landlord Tenant Board.
The most important reality among this string of shocking realities, is that LTB has fundamentally failed to grasp the meaning of the word justice. Evidence shows that prior to LTB’s introduction into all of this landlords were treated justly by the legal system.
And then along came LTB introducing what has proven to be flawed policies and procedures that I’ve presented in this ebook. These changes, clearly show that LTB has compromised historic norms that have rendered LTB unjust and counter productive today.
The Chairperson’s findings were academically sound but at the same time in his Ruling he proves without a doubt that he had not even read my (defendant’s) Answer and thus, the matter boiled down to only verbal input presented at the Hearing. As the defendant I wasted a massive amount of time, energy and money all for nothing!
Page 1 of LTB’s Ruling
In Page 1 of this 5 page Ruling the Chairperson addresses the landlord’s simple filing of our N4 for “Non Payment of Rent”. This is the case that the tenant represented to the Chairperson at the first Hearing to be “so complicated that it deserved to be delayed and attached with his T2”.
The facts show that it, in truth, is as basic an application as possible and if handled properly would require at most a 15 minute Hearing (the tenant did not pay rent for each day he resided in the property which is categorically required under the law).
So, in his July Ruling, the Chairperson is seen in the opening of “Determinations: L1 Application” stating for the record:
1. The Landlord served the Tenant with a valid N1 Notice to end the tenancy for Non- Payment of Rent (N4 Notice). The Tenant did not void the Notice by paying the amount of rent arrears owing by the Termination Date in the N4.
2. The Tenant was in possession of the rental unit on the date the application was filed.
3. The Tenant vacated the Rental Unit on October 18, 2022. Rent arrears are calculated up to the date the Tenant vacated the unit.
4. The rent arrears owing on October 18, 2022 are $17,958.84.
5. The Landlord incurred costs of $186 for filing the application and is entitled to reimbursement of those costs.
Page 2 of LTB’s Ruling
6. The Landlord collected a rental deposit of $5,000 from the Tenant and this Deposit is held by the Landlord. The rent deposit is applied to the arrears of rent because the tenancy terminated.
7. Interest on the rent deposit in the amount of $70.85 is owing to the Tenant for the period from August 14, 2021, to October 18, 2022”. This Ruling shows just how “uncomplicated” the N4 matter at the first LTB Hearing actually was, showing that it could have been dealt with in mere minutes as it is literally so straight forward. It also shows that the tenant lied again on the record.
The Chairperson then, without further comment on this very straight forward matter, moved on to the Tenant’s “T2 Application”;
8. The Tenant’s application alleges the Landlord substantially interfered with the Tenant. As explained below the Tenant’s application is dismissed. So here we can see how valid the tenant’s application was, thus the rescheduling of the first Hearing proves a mischaracterization of justice.
9. The Tenant asserts that the Landlord failed to install a cement patio as agreed upon in the lease, which affected his enjoyment of the property.
10. The Landlord admits to a delay in installing the cement patio. Charles testified at the hearing and emphasized that it was eventually completed. He suggests that the delay was communicated to the Tenant and was not intended to diminish his enjoyment of the property.
Now, here’s where the rubber meets the road! The Chairperson here verifies that he had not read the Landlord’s Answer to the Tenant’s T2! Had the Chairperson actually read the Landlord’s submission (landlord’s Answer – the absolute key to discovering the facts of any case) the Chairperson would have known that the deck was never delayed as it had always been “scheduled for the Spring 2022” and the tenancy commenced on October 1, 2021! In alleging that it was supposed to have been installed prior to him moving in he was knowingly lying in his T2 and again perpetuated this lie on the record repeatedly at the Hearing which is another offence.
Page #3 of LTB’s Ruling
The Chairperson is seen here misunderstanding the basic facts: “landlord suggests that the delay was communicated to the tenant” when a delay categorically was not communicated to the tenant by the landlord! There can be no justice when answers and evidence are not even looked at, leading to facts being distorted by LTB.
The Chairperson acknowledges that “the deck was contracted in August 2021” but is seen missing the fact that “the deck was to be built in the following spring” with the Tenant fully informed prior to entering into the lease. In doing so the LTB allowed untruthful allegations to persist and allowed the tenant to get away with outright lying to LTB, this time on the record.
None-the-less, the Chairperson moved forward with the Hearing and continued under his misunderstanding of the basic facts throughout the Hearing and when issuing his ruling. Our paralegal did not attempt to correct the Chairman’s misunderstanding and I doubt that he was even aware of it.
The Chairperson’s confusion of basic facts can be seen continuing through paragraphs 11 – 17 of his Ruling rendering his conclusions relatively useless as he was dealing with a distorted concept of the fact of the case but he still lands fully on the side of the landlords due to the facts being so clear and obvious.
One fact that did present itself to the Chairperson is seen in paragraph 16 of his Ruling where he states: “The Tenant was aware the patio was not installed when he moved into the rental unit”. But then he falls back on his inaccurate understanding of the facts: “There were delays in installation because of the contractor”. The facts are that there was never any delay.
The facts show that the Chairperson was forming his decision in an official LTB Ruling having not even read a defendant’s side of a law suit brought by the tenant. The defendant (Landlords) explained each false allegation set out in the tenant’s Word Doc attached to his bad faith T2 but the Chairperson never read or even looked at it. The Chairperson closes paragraph 16 stating: “This portion of the Tenant’s application is dismissed”.
The Chairperson’s Ruling addresses another portion of the tenant’s complaint with a heading: “Illegal Entries”. Clauses 17 through 23 addresses all the repetitive false allegations of illegal entries in one short sentence: “The landlord was within his rights to inspect the rental unit. This portion of the Tenant’s application is dismissed”.
Harassment
Paragraphs 24, 25 and 26 once again show how ill-informed the Chairperson was due to him not having read the Landlord’s Answer to the T2.
But, despite his obvious confusion and lack of awareness of the facts, the matters were fortunately obvious enough for him to conclude: “This portion of the tenant’s application is dismissed.
Page 4 of LTB’s Ruling
And on page 4 of the Chairperson ruling he continues: It is ordered that: Regarding the T2 Application:
- The Tenant’s application is dismissed”.
- Regarding the L1 Application: The Tenancy between the landlord and tenant isterminated as of October 18, 2022 the date the tenant moved out of the rental unit.
- The Tenant shall pay to the landlord $13,073.99. This amount includes rental arrears owning up to the date the tenant moved out and the filing fees. The rent deposit and interest are deducted.
- If the Tenant does not pay the landlord the full amount owing on or before April 5th the Tenant will start to owe interest. This will be simple interest calculated from April 6th, 2024 at 7.00% annually on the balance outstanding.
Page 5 of LTB’s Ruling
Page 5 simply laid out the financial obligations on the Tenant and that was it. Not a single allegation introduced by the tenant proved to be of any merit whatsoever. In baseball terms “it was a no hitter”!
But this game stretched out for over 18 month long innings, despite the case having absolutely no merit whatsoever. Had LTB simply had a common sense mechanism (customary in every other court of law that I’m aware of) enabling an aggrieved party to motion for Summary Judgement, this case could have been and would have been disposed of with within days with no added burden added onto LTB’s massive backlog and the taxpayers’ wallets.
What the Ruling shows is that this entire episode with all the extreme and bazaar false allegations of “landlord intimidation, threatening, bullying, attempting to force the tenant to vacate the property, threats and intimidation, dangerous deck heights and no deck at occupancy,“ while the evidence is showing that it all has all been about “nothing”. Nothing more than an unlawful attempt to financially exploit an innocent landlord by a corrupt tenant.
Today, at the writing of this ebook some four months after the Hearing, LTB remains absolutely unaware of the con job that was orchestrated against it as well as against the landlords, and as well as taxpayers, by simply not doing that which I am more than confident would be set out in their job description.
Not having read a defendant’s Answer in a tenant’s pursuit of damages equalling over $50,000 is simply not good enough. In my opinion it qualifies for malfeasance and based on the Ombudsman’s Report LTB is a failed attempt at justice.
