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.