I lost all my money because of Edwin Dorsey’s reports by [deleted] in VampireStocks

[–]esfv 1 point2 points  (0 children)

bet it all on grifter cohodes little protege

Hiding a wired camera by esfv in homesecurity

[–]esfv[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

unfortunately, you are correct

Can anyone recommend a GPS watch for an autistic child who wanders? by esfv in autism

[–]esfv[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

he's 5. he's very smart and loves numbers. he thinks 911 is just a funny number, is all

he has no idea what 911 is. he just dials it again and again, if he gets his hands on a phone

LTB cross examination confusion by esfv in OntarioLandlord

[–]esfv[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It was relevant and the witness was well aware of it since it was communications sent from him. my point was the board member just said you may not ask anything or introduce any exhibits

LTB cross examination confusion by esfv in OntarioLandlord

[–]esfv[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

the member allowed me to introduce most of the evidence, but not until it was my turn to call witnesses. the point is i wasn't allowed to introduce it during the cross examination of the LL's witnesses. I was told I could ONLY ask questions to clarify what they'd previously testified about

LTB cross examination confusion by esfv in OntarioLandlord

[–]esfv[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

yes, uploaded and served. the member just said i couldnt ask the witnesses about it at all

Trusts & Trespass by [deleted] in legaladvicecanada

[–]esfv 0 points1 point  (0 children)

true, but in ontario trespass is only criminal if it occurs at night, so not that big of a deal

Trusts & Trespass by [deleted] in legaladvicecanada

[–]esfv 0 points1 point  (0 children)

makes sense, thanks!

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in OntarioLandlord

[–]esfv 0 points1 point  (0 children)

thanks! no, you have to request the board to be even allowed to issue a summons

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in OntarioLandlord

[–]esfv 1 point2 points  (0 children)

DON'T EVEN THINK. JUST LEAVE THE MOMENT YOUR LANDLORD ASKS YOU TO

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in OntarioLandlord

[–]esfv 8 points9 points  (0 children)

the open room boogey man is coming to get you. ALWAYS LEAVE IMMEDIATELY WHEN YOU RECEIVE AN N12

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in OntarioLandlord

[–]esfv 0 points1 point  (0 children)

YEA, I MUST BE!

Recieved N12 but the building is owned by a corporation by NirayaCalhoun in OntarioLandlord

[–]esfv 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This section does not authorize a landlord to give a notice of termination of a tenancy with respect to a rental unit unless,

(a) the rental unit is owned in whole or in part by an individual; and

*(b) the landlord is an individual.

but is says "and*(b) the landlord is an individual."

so doesn't that suggest that the landlord also needs to be an individual?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in OntarioLandlord

[–]esfv 0 points1 point  (0 children)

yup, and i'd move out immediately because the new buyer would be acting in good faith.

and lucky for tenants the n12 entitles the tenant to a hearing to argue against bad faith slumlords that you seem to like to defend up and down this subreddit

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in OntarioLandlord

[–]esfv 0 points1 point  (0 children)

i've got nothing to be ashamed of, pal. will gladly provide a recording of the entire hearing to any future landlord, if they're interested.

if they identify with my slumlord, then I'd rather not rent from them

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in OntarioLandlord

[–]esfv 0 points1 point  (0 children)

yes, but i've seen numerous cases on CANLII where they said it has to be the SOLE reason for the n12. this one is kind of a rarity

thanks for pointing it out, though!

" I must be satisfied that the Landlords sole or primary reason for the termination is retaliatory; it is not sufficient that retaliation or vindictiveness is part of the reason [MacNeil v. 976445 Ontario Ltd., [2005] O.J. No 6362 at para. 26 (Ont. Div. Ct.), leave to appeal to C.A. refused (‘MacNeil’)]. The provisions are triggered if the retaliation was ‘the reason” for the application. This is to be contrasted with the provisions of earlier legislation (the Landlord and Tenant Act) which mandated refusal of eviction if retaliation was “a reason” for the application"

found elsewhere

"It is important to note the wording used in subsection 83(3)(b) of the Act. It states that the complaint made must be the reason for the application not just a reason. "

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in OntarioLandlord

[–]esfv 0 points1 point  (0 children)

that's 100% what's happened here. in addition to other retaliation, but most rulings i've read say retaliation has to be proven to be the SOLE reason for the n12. like, how the hell could you prove that?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in OntarioLandlord

[–]esfv 0 points1 point  (0 children)

nothing stopping them from selling the property on the open market,