Complaint re Melchers Vexatious Conduct (reply)

The following is the response to Mr Melchers' clarification that the Landlord Tenant Board is a Social Justice Tribunal, and thereby awards are capped at 50K, similar to the Human Rights Tribunal. Not sure why he uttered that clarification, as the HRT is the most readily apparent avenue by which to seek redress, if we are forced to seek redress.

As I explored in my message to Mr Melchers, it is readily apparent that Medallion Corporation (as his client) has not been forthcoming with the him in their affidavit, and it is mystifying why they have denied me access to their offices for to resolve this issue.
It is, as they've made abundantly clear, most assuredly not because I do not wear a mask or other acceptable form of compliance, such as a muzzle or plastic bag.
Albeit, Mr Melchers very properly demanded that I provide proof of my exemption which he, as an Officer of the Courts, is so rightfully accorded as his right.

This Respondent is somewhat fearful because, albeit his client's factum was >80% lies and/or deceptive testimony, it is an insurmountable case to argue from the cold streets of Toronto, as I fight off the ravenous packs of other homeless raiders from pilfering my possessions and violating my person.
So, I've extended an Olive Branch for his client to swiftly and reasonable reconcile this matter in appropriate form.


 

Dear Mr Melchers,

Firstly, please refer to me in correspondence as "#####" or "Mr #######". Secondly, I directly requested that you "..please PDF your wonderfully delicious Notice on Notice of Eviction? As you're fully aware of the hearings being conducted virtually, I'll require a proper and complete electronic copy for to make full answer [and] defence to any proposed litigation."

Please provide this, if your client really wants to continue with the pretence that this is a valid eviction notice, and not some petty form of discrimination. But puffery aside, I take it from your correspondence, that the client has not disclosed to you the fact that I have invoked my protections both in person, and in writing? That is unfortunate, and thank-you VERY MUCH for reminding me that the LTB is a SJT, and so the ceiling would be 50K for an award. I'm noting this not because I'm seeking damages like the vexatious litigants you are so accustomed, but rather so that your Client is fully aware of the possibility of punitive damages for its vexatious persecution of tenants invoking their protections.

You're asking that I "..advise why [I] believe [I am] exempt.." which leads me to further believe that you have been deliberately misled by your client. I have a prima facie exemption and albeit I am most assuredly NOT required by law to disclose this, I am doing so in the utmost good faith. For the record, it is improper for your client or even yourself to ask for any additional substantiation of Mandatory Mask Exemption after the invocation of Exemption Rights.

In order to minimize any perceived persecution in the future, both yourself and your client are recommended to inquire solely about whether a person is invoking their exemption status ("are you exempt, Sir?"), as to inquire any further could be portrayed as an actionable tenet of impropriety. Specifically violation of Conscience Rights (Charter, section 2) and Disability Protections (Human Rights Code 6, Human Rights Protections, and Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act), albeit your client is not directly bound by the Charter, the HRC provides ample protections. Your Client should also learn to read the rules they're trying to enforce, because what I have is called a "Prima Facie" exemption, so even on top of your Client being notified of my Invocation of Exemption provisions, any reasonable person (ie, someone who's actually read their policy and governing legislation, and isn't blind) would understand that I have exemption.

The fact that I had to walk your client's staff through their own policy for the invocation of my exemption, is bit aggravating. Does your client do no training on applicable tenant protections, but only how they may persecute or otherwise "turn the screws" on tenants? I've been talking with other tenants, and this looks like a systemic case of harassment and discrimination against tenants. The fact that, instead of a phone call and meeting to discuss this issue, your client routinely issues N5 notices (what I term as "Notice on Notice of Eviction") for anything just to establish a disproportional power equilibrium for negotiation purposes. Colloquially, this is called "Foolish Flexing".

Your client has to talk to tenants on the level, but there seems to be a disturbing pattern that whenever your client wants to meet with a tenant to resolve an issue, they do so under the threat of a Notice of Eviction, resulting in any concessions by tenants being arguably as a result of duress. Your client demands that if the noted complaints are not resolved to their criteria, they want me out by January 2nd, 2020? But by there own admission, they're prohibiting amicable resolution to this material conflict by prohibiting my attendance at their office?

Please advise your client that they should at least make an effort to resolve matters amicably without the involvement of the courts, which are severely stressed under the CoronaChan restrictions. I seek only to deescalate this issue and for your client to properly abide by the applicable laws, including but not limited to the Reopening Ontario Act.

And to clarify again for you and your lying client (their factum was 80% lies and/or deceptive testimony) I am a Prima Facie exemption from the Mandatory Mask Policy, Bylaws, and Legislation, and albeit there is no requirement for me disclose further, I do so under duress and in the utmost of good faith hoping for an amicable resolution to this here conflict:
I have a physical disability preventing me from independently donning or doffing a mask or other acceptable face covering, such as a muzzle or plastic bag. I additionally have a multitude of exemptions as per the Human Rights Code, including but not limited to Creed, Disability,   and Other Grounds as explored further in the paper by the Ontario Human Rights Commission at Policy on Competing Human Rights.

I have brought these to your attention because albeit I am well-grounded and have an easily arguable case against eviction, it will be an insurmountable case to argue from the cold streets of Toronto, as I fight off the ravenous packs of other homeless raiders from pilfering my possessions and violating my person.  Please confirm receipt of this message, as I'm suffering undue amounts of stress at the prospect of being dumped on the street in the coldest months of the year.

--
#######################################
#######################################
#######################################

PS: I apologize in advance for any spelling or grammatical errors, but I feel that this needs to be expeditiously addressed, and so I am willing to look an uneducated douche if necessary. I am trusting that you understand this.

Cc:
• Mask Law Violations (blog at masklaw.ca)
Rocco Galati, Constitutional Rights Centre Inc
Denis Rancourt, Ontario Civil Liberties Association
• Rob Roberts, National Post
• Legal Intervention Requests, Ontario Human Rights Commission

Comments

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.