it is no surprise at all that doug ford thinks he's above the law, and that the rules don't apply to him.
so, as frightening as this is as a tone issue, it's absolutely expected.
you should expect this kind of corruption and abuse of power from this government. daily.
the notwithstanding clause is largely meant for national security issues. you have to remember that canada didn't have a constitution until 1982, so the various governments were apprehensive about signing away too much power. trudeau actually pointed out that the constitution was a consequence of the october crisis, but a lot of people at the time were wondering why he gave in to the bleeding hearts - and what would happen if they couldn't restore order by force.
this kind of frivolous use is unheard of. but, we elected a buffoon, and we need to expect him to act like one.
fwiw, i have little interest in how many city councillors are elected in toronto.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/judge-ruling-city-council-bill-election-1.4816664
Monday, September 10, 2018
is chrystia freeland's gender a difficulty for the us side?
i might suspect that her height is a bigger issue.
we were concerned about them pushing us around, and we sent a 4' 12" journalist in a prom dress to stand up for us.
does anybody have one of those milk crates for her to stand on? i think i have a soapbox she can borrow, just a second...
i might suspect that her height is a bigger issue.
we were concerned about them pushing us around, and we sent a 4' 12" journalist in a prom dress to stand up for us.
does anybody have one of those milk crates for her to stand on? i think i have a soapbox she can borrow, just a second...
at
19:16
well, where did the idea that canada and mexico should act in solidarity against the united states come from, in the first place?
was canada colonized by the spanish or the english? is it a borderline third world country, or a g7 economic powerhouse?
it's nice to argue that canada has more leverage if it aligns with mexico, but that presupposes that mexico and canada have common interests. in fact, our interests are diametrically opposed. so, it was a ridiculous premise from the start.
and, this was the point i was trying to get across: our interests were never aligned with mexico against american investment, but always aligned with america against the race to the bottom that happens when you bring a third world economy into a free trade deal with two major economies, as an equal.
you can't blame mexico for stabbing us in the back. they never had any reason to take our side, or be our ally. and, we were stupid to ever think that would happen.
we were even more stupid to prioritize the interests of a state we share common concerns about with our primary ally, over that of our primary ally.
the sad part is that it may expose some underlying perception of what canada is by the colonial liberal elite. mexico north was always a pejorative term, meant to expose the decline in living standards nafta was going to bring forward. to an elite that just sees the country as a set of resources to refine and export to foreign markets, maybe canada really isn't that different than mexico.
we should have put our own interests first. we were simply fools not to. but, maybe it's less clear what 'our' means.
was canada colonized by the spanish or the english? is it a borderline third world country, or a g7 economic powerhouse?
it's nice to argue that canada has more leverage if it aligns with mexico, but that presupposes that mexico and canada have common interests. in fact, our interests are diametrically opposed. so, it was a ridiculous premise from the start.
and, this was the point i was trying to get across: our interests were never aligned with mexico against american investment, but always aligned with america against the race to the bottom that happens when you bring a third world economy into a free trade deal with two major economies, as an equal.
you can't blame mexico for stabbing us in the back. they never had any reason to take our side, or be our ally. and, we were stupid to ever think that would happen.
we were even more stupid to prioritize the interests of a state we share common concerns about with our primary ally, over that of our primary ally.
the sad part is that it may expose some underlying perception of what canada is by the colonial liberal elite. mexico north was always a pejorative term, meant to expose the decline in living standards nafta was going to bring forward. to an elite that just sees the country as a set of resources to refine and export to foreign markets, maybe canada really isn't that different than mexico.
we should have put our own interests first. we were simply fools not to. but, maybe it's less clear what 'our' means.
at
14:59
to be clear.
what this is going to do is put me on month-to-month at the rent reduction, $525, until i can get out of here.
they can try and file an n4, but i think they'll lose. they can try an n5 if they want, but they'd have to win an argument, and that might be harder than they think; i have two bullshit n5s as it is, and the first one is almost at six months.
it's going to be as hard for them to get me out as it is going to be for me to get out. and, it's not going to be cheap, either.
they're better off waiting me out. but, they've consistently made stupid choices...
what this is going to do is put me on month-to-month at the rent reduction, $525, until i can get out of here.
they can try and file an n4, but i think they'll lose. they can try an n5 if they want, but they'd have to win an argument, and that might be harder than they think; i have two bullshit n5s as it is, and the first one is almost at six months.
it's going to be as hard for them to get me out as it is going to be for me to get out. and, it's not going to be cheap, either.
they're better off waiting me out. but, they've consistently made stupid choices...
at
03:49
my landlord could very well end up with an aneurysm from this.
it's costing him a fortune!
he should have dealt with the smoke.
it's costing him a fortune!
he should have dealt with the smoke.
at
03:42
i actually spent quite a while over the last few days trying to figure out how to do this in a way that was frivolous, but when i sat down to write it, i realized that i actually have a decent argument.
at the very least, this is going to be hard to actively dismiss.
==
THE APPELLANT APPEALS to the Divisional Court from the order of (Landlord and Tenant Board) dated Aug 1, 2018 made at London, Ontario.
THE APPELLANT ASKS that the order be set aside and an order instead be granted for month-to-month tenancy in the unit in question, and at the 25% reduction, until the appellant is able to secure smoke-free housing and consequently vacate the unit.
THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL are as follows:
Main Grounds under s. 83(3)(d)
1. The initial application to the board, made in April of 2018, was a T2 and a T6, together, requesting an end to the tenancy and compensation for negligence around non-action in keeping second-hand smoke (SWT-16361-18) out of the unit. The applicant initially thought that it would be relatively easy to secure non-smoking housing, and requested a July 1st move-out date as a result of this. However, the tribunal date was delayed until July 5th, making the initial request impossible. The applicant also learned over May and June that moving would be more difficult than initially thought, as the vacancy rate in Windsor is low and non-smoking housing is scarce. The provincial election also created some uncertainty.
2. At the hearing, the applicant requested that the tenancy be placed month-to-month to ensure that this process did not lead to accidental homelessness, as that appeared to be a potential outcome, in the case that healthy housing could not be found. The adjudicator insisted that the respondent has a right to certainty, and asked for a specific date. Under some duress, the applicant accepted a move-out date of Sept 30, 2018, and hoped it would work out for the best.
3. As of Sept 10, 2018, it appears that this hard exit date is going to lead to the feared condition of homelessness.
4. To use a deprecated term with some poetic license, it is patently unreasonable for a tenant to apply to the board seeking damages for negligence, win the case and then end up homeless because alternative housing arrangements cannot be found. Under s. 83(3)(d), eviction cannot be ordered as a consequence of enforcing a right. Yet, this is essentially what is happening. This agreement to end the tenancy was coerced by the adjudicator, who should have put the tenancy on a month-to-month as was requested, rather than effectively order an eviction on a rights issue.
5. So, the error made by the adjudicator is under s. 83(3)(d), as she ordered an eviction as a consequence of a conflict stemming from an assertion of rights, when the applicant requested a month-to-month agreement, instead. This will be clear in the audio and the transcripts.
THE BASIS OF THE APPELLATE COURT’S JURISDICTION IS: The appeal is from a final order of an adjudicator of an administrative tribunal, namely the Landlord and Tenant Board of Ontario; see Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 19(1)(c).
The appellant requests that this appeal be heard at 245 Windsor Ave, Windsor, Ontario.
====
the appeal will probably be heard in london, if we get there.
this is actually kind of recursive, isn't it?
i will obviously drop the appeal if i find a way out.
at the very least, this is going to be hard to actively dismiss.
==
THE APPELLANT APPEALS to the Divisional Court from the order of (Landlord and Tenant Board) dated Aug 1, 2018 made at London, Ontario.
THE APPELLANT ASKS that the order be set aside and an order instead be granted for month-to-month tenancy in the unit in question, and at the 25% reduction, until the appellant is able to secure smoke-free housing and consequently vacate the unit.
THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL are as follows:
Main Grounds under s. 83(3)(d)
1. The initial application to the board, made in April of 2018, was a T2 and a T6, together, requesting an end to the tenancy and compensation for negligence around non-action in keeping second-hand smoke (SWT-16361-18) out of the unit. The applicant initially thought that it would be relatively easy to secure non-smoking housing, and requested a July 1st move-out date as a result of this. However, the tribunal date was delayed until July 5th, making the initial request impossible. The applicant also learned over May and June that moving would be more difficult than initially thought, as the vacancy rate in Windsor is low and non-smoking housing is scarce. The provincial election also created some uncertainty.
2. At the hearing, the applicant requested that the tenancy be placed month-to-month to ensure that this process did not lead to accidental homelessness, as that appeared to be a potential outcome, in the case that healthy housing could not be found. The adjudicator insisted that the respondent has a right to certainty, and asked for a specific date. Under some duress, the applicant accepted a move-out date of Sept 30, 2018, and hoped it would work out for the best.
3. As of Sept 10, 2018, it appears that this hard exit date is going to lead to the feared condition of homelessness.
4. To use a deprecated term with some poetic license, it is patently unreasonable for a tenant to apply to the board seeking damages for negligence, win the case and then end up homeless because alternative housing arrangements cannot be found. Under s. 83(3)(d), eviction cannot be ordered as a consequence of enforcing a right. Yet, this is essentially what is happening. This agreement to end the tenancy was coerced by the adjudicator, who should have put the tenancy on a month-to-month as was requested, rather than effectively order an eviction on a rights issue.
5. So, the error made by the adjudicator is under s. 83(3)(d), as she ordered an eviction as a consequence of a conflict stemming from an assertion of rights, when the applicant requested a month-to-month agreement, instead. This will be clear in the audio and the transcripts.
THE BASIS OF THE APPELLATE COURT’S JURISDICTION IS: The appeal is from a final order of an adjudicator of an administrative tribunal, namely the Landlord and Tenant Board of Ontario; see Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 19(1)(c).
The appellant requests that this appeal be heard at 245 Windsor Ave, Windsor, Ontario.
====
the appeal will probably be heard in london, if we get there.
this is actually kind of recursive, isn't it?
i will obviously drop the appeal if i find a way out.
at
03:22
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)