i'm going to make my decisions based on what's best for me, not what's best for the people around me.

and, fuck you if you don't like it.

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.

it's 5:30.

i'm still awake.

when i turned the machine back on, i realized that the internet was randomly unplugged. that's quite bizarre. i was only gone for about an hour. if i get set up for something over usage while i was out mailing the review, it's documented over my camera.

the review got mailed. these things are low probability. but i think it's a necessity to try it. if i'm lucky, i'll trigger something.

stalling is a valid tactic, right now.

i spent the afternoon doing laundry and cleaning, and will have a smoothie and take a shower before i try to sleep.

so, what am i doing?

the review process has to unfold before i consider an appeal. but, this has to revolve around the market.

if i find something comparable, or maybe better (third floor would be better - no cats at the window), i would have to move at it. the thing is that i think that this is unlikely to the point of fanciful - i'm probably going to have to wait for months and months before something comes up on the market that i can accept as lateral. and, then what?

my options are very restricted by my gear and my income. it's a contradiction: i need a place big enough and safe enough for my gear as the absolute number one priority, but i also need it under $700. and, i can't and don't want to go to fucking work.

i moved 700 km to take this place. it was very hard to find. i didn't intend to move out less than five years later. and, it could take me a really long time to find a suitable replacement.

if i don't or can't find a suitable replacement, i'm going to have to go to the court of appeal as a stalling tactic. i have until around the 20th. i can't and won't move thousands of dollars of gear into a place it will be stolen, and i can't afford more than $700/month.

the likely reality is that i'm almost certainly stuck here. and. i'm not concerned about what the people around me think about it.

but, i have to look....

in the mean time, i have to find a way to multitask, too. maybe if i do one release a day, it'll keep me moving.

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.

they claim it was a bureaucratic error.

that's the kind of thing that's a piss-off. i don't know what i'm doing, yet, but i just blew a week of opportunity because an incompetent judge couldn't push a fucking button.

let's start with the review and go from there.

i'm sorry, buyer, but i can't ship until i know where i'm living, or at least i know what i'm doing. i won't even be able to think about it. i don't multitask well...

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.

well, then.

the landlord and tenant board does not have any record of this decision at all - as far as they are concerned, the decision remains outstanding.

i need to send copies of the documents to the london, ontario bureau.

it's possible that the adjudicator got eager and mailed the documents without sending it to the rotary. that would be kind of suspicious on her behalf, frankly. i think that would be a pretty big deal. i'd have to look into that.

i'm still leaning heavily on balls out fraud. and, i don't know how big a deal this is - beyond being able to cite it in future harassment proceedings.

it's the kind of thing that makes everything else look really bad, too. if i can demonstrate a fake notice, i can demonstrate complicity in the death of jfk.

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.

i'm in a situation to cause them a real mess. it's their own fault.

i can file an appeal with the appeals court. it could take eighteen months to two years. that stays the order - it's a two year lease.

mom is two years away from retirement, and she was supposed to go to the home after that. well, it's what they said.

dad is probably two years away from dead.

and, then they probably sell - if not before then.

i have 30 days from the 23rd (presuming this is all legit) to serve to the landlord, then ten days to file the appeal. i should be able to get the internal review done quickly if i send it this morning. then, i'll serve them before the 20th in their actual damned mailbox. i can get the files to the court before the first.

i'm going to have to spend some time every other day looking at options. if something workable comes up, i'll have to call. but, the point is that there isn't anything workable out there - that i'm stuck here.

it's not like i'm acting in bad faith, either. i know they're full of shit. sure, i'm stalling, but this is what they get.

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.

there's a far easier point for appeal, as well - the claim that the tenant has the burden of proof, here. that's utterly ridiculous. yet, there it is.

if you make a claim in court, you always have the responsibility to demonstrate it. it doesn't matter what the claim is. the presumption of innocence is consequently merely a rule of thumb. the judge may have confused herself over this.

(if this is a real case).

if the state is accusing you of guilt, you have the presumption of innocence. but, if the state is accusing you of innocence, you have the presumption of guilt. if the state is accusing you of tiredness, you have the presumption of awakeness. & etc. it's not some moral principle. it's an application of the scientific method; a kind of null hypothesis - you start with the reversal of x and you determine if there's enough evidence to overturn x.

so, when the writer of this paper puts together the words that the tenant needs to show on balance of probability that the landlord's claim is false, she's not understanding what those words mean - that only makes sense in the context of reversing the null hypothesis. there's no balance of probabilities in overturning an assumption - it's by counter-example. and, that's impossible.

so, no wonder she didn't consider the right part of the law - she has her burden of proof backwards.

the idea that what somebody says in court should be treated as true unless it can be proven false is some kind of weird, classist backwardsness, or...i don't even know how to get my head around it.

if the tenant had the burden of proof, then the landlord would literally be able to make anything at all up and dare the tenant to disprove it. that's not how our legal system works, or has ever worked - and hopefully it will never work that way. that's not a justice system....

i'm leaning strongly towards "fake". a few more hours...

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.

on second thought, if this is a real order, i'm going to challenge it.

The tenant did not relate the particulars of what happened but only mentioned that she was verbally threatened with eviction.

this is completely false - i provided the context of the previous court process. we spent quite a while discussing this.

given that the finding that there was no ulterior motive was made without considering the facts, and even attempting to ignore them by pretending no discussion was had, that's an error in law, and i can and will appeal this. that was the most important part of the case, and she pretended it didn't happen in order to hand wave away a s. 83.

she also claims one of the other emails didn't state a threat of eviction but only a "threat", which is what i was getting at with wilful blindness - as though it would be ok to threaten me, otherwise, and as though it doesn't have any effect on the case, right? i can dress a few of these up as errors given the first point.

i'm extremely skeptical, right now. this is clearly shoddy. and, that website is supposed to pull right from the database: it should update the same time that it prints.

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.

i seriously may have received a false order.

i'm just comparing to the previous one. i mean, i don't know...

1) there is no stamp on the order.
2) the previous ruling took two weeks. this one took two business days. i'm happy to get a quick ruling, too, mind you, but, still.
3) these people are horribly dishonest. i'm absolutely certain they opened the letter for the previous decision. i was actually expecting something funny, here.
4) it's not on the web page.
5) "this order contains all of the reasons in this matter and no further reasons will issue.". there is then no "reasons" section. ?.
6) the signature is curious to say the least.

i dunno. very fishy. i must call.

this is what the website should look like:

this is what it does look like:

would they do this? yeah. and, they're in huge trouble, if they did.

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.

well, this is unusual.

i have a letter in my box, but the online tool claims that the case has not yet been adjudicated. i'll have to call in the morning.

it's dated to monday, which is when it should have been finished. there is a good possibility that there's a database error. there's a good possibility that it's a forgery, given that these people are persistent frauds and liars.

the ruling is ordering me to vacate by december 1st.

however, it didn't address my legal concern under 83 (3)(c):

(c) the reason for the application being brought is that the tenant has attempted to secure or enforce his or her legal rights;

this is supposed to be an automatic stop. and, it doesn't rely upon the question of good faith - even if the applicant is found to be in good faith (as they were, and as they may be), this is supposed to halt the proceedings in their tracks.

she did a balancing under 83(2) and she did it correctly. but she seems to be in error in not in contemplating 83(3) at all.

that said, she did state that the ruling of good faith is with no ulterior motive, and that would make it difficult for me to appeal - despite it obviously being wrong, and my case being quite well presented. she seems to have simply discarded the evidence i provided to her. that's why you don't want to put things in front of judges if you don't have to, they can decide what they want to accept and what they don't want to accept.

i might get lucky on finding a failing student that needs out for december 1st.

i disagree with this ruling - i think it was obvious that they're retaliating, and i made my case as best as was possible. i will be vigilant in suing them when i find out that their mother is not moving in - and she isn't. but, outside of verifying that this is the real case in the morning, i don't see a further course of action.

should i have carried on with the previous suit? it wouldn't have mattered much. they would have done this, anyways - it's why they were harassing me for months, because they wanted me out. and, if she was going to discard the evidence i gave her, she was going to discard the evidence i didn't give her - it wouldn't have made the case stronger than it already was. i gave her eight eviction attempts, and she just said the landlord has the right to hand out the notices - that's indescribable except through wilful blindness, when the ninth is an n12 on the same day as a previous case ended. if i had won the harassment suit, she'd just have said it doesn't matter because it's a different suit. and, how do you prove this beyond circumstantially, short of a recording? you have to rely on the judge to draw obvious inferences, and this one refused to do that. also, i wouldn't have been able to keep the money, remember - i'd have to give it back to odsp. it was about trying to stop the persistent harassment by standing up for myself, not about turning a profit. the other option was to keep getting harassed, which is a non-choice. and, while it failed, it provided me with the documentation i required for the case. i think i made the right choice in hoping it would blow over - if i had won, i'd have gained nothing of value because they were too fucking stubborn to listen (that was the sad realization i had to grapple with.). and, of course, i couldn't let the situation fester, i couldn't let them keep harassing me to try and push me out until they succeeded, i had to react in some sense.

this is a part of the law that shouldn't exist. but, it does exist. and, i got a shitty judge that either didn't want to see the obvious or didn't care what the obvious was. the next step has to be for me to find somewhere else to stay, and then sue them for damages and dishonesty once i get there - and that's going to be expensive on their behalf, you can be sure.

i'm also going to have to start from square one with the air quality. ugh.

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.