Tenant Complaint re Melchers Conduct

Please confirm receipt of this email generally, and especially (pretty please) if you're with the Law Society of Ontario, or the Ontario Bar Association, or if your name is Joe Hoffer. Thank-you, and this message is of some urgency.
 

Dear Mr Melchers.

I submit this in response to your threatening, albeit imperfectly composed, letter served on my person after 5:00PM on Friday December 11th, 2020. In this letter you tried to qualify the Notice of Eviction for January 02nd, 2021. According to the Residential Tenancies Act (ON) and the Interpretation Act (ON), the Landlord is permitted to demand the tenants vacate the premises can be no less than 14 days after service, versus no less than 20 days for the first N5 served upon residents of the unit.

Now, if this was the second N5 Notice to End your Tenancy in the past 6 months,  the clock would start counting on Monday December 14th, 2020 and 14 days, minus weekends and statutory holidays (see Interpretation Act 29(1) ) which would technically elapse on January 06th 2021, so the earliest data of eviction would be January 07th, 2021.

I understand that your client professes to be faithful servants of Judaism, and thereby do not recognize Christmas or New Years Day as holidays, even though your client has posted notice signifying their observance of the following dates as holidays:

• December 24th, Thursday    (Half-Day)
• December 25th, Friday
• December 28th, Monday
• December 31st, Thursday    (Half-Day)
• January 1st, Friday

So practicably, albeit the Tribunal or Court would have to rule on it, your client has extended the window to Thursday, January 07th, 2021. But that's not all, as that is only applicable IF the Respondents have received an N5 within 6-months of the N5 served legally at 0900EST on Monday, December 14th, 2020. Even your agreed upon facts, indicate that the Respondents were served with an N5 on July 10, 2019. Therefore, six calendar months expired on January 10th, 2020.
Following your own provided facts and information, the Respondents are accorded at least 20 days to vacate the premises, and an additional 6 days which your client has withdrawn from participation. So essentially, to vacate by no later than Friday, January 15th, 2021.
If that is, it were PROPERLY constructed and executed, but the fact that you dredged up irrelevant historical events out of scope, and not chronologically pertinent to the Residential Tenancies Act, but which can only be construed as a malicious, or even arguably vexatious character assassination, I've looked at it again through a proper lens, taking into account your willingness to face fines from the Ontario Law Society, and demerits by the Ontario Bar Association. So I guess your client must really have it out for me, and I should just curl up in a fetal position to take their abuses, correct?

But this is, I think, almost beside the point. Your client's office and staff do not wish to deal with me, for I am (according to your factum rhetoric) regarded as sub-human (not having recognizable Human Rights) because I am unable or unwilling (due to ideological or other protected rights) to where a compliant mask or face-covering.

Why does your client continually refuse to acknowledge that I am legally and lawfully exempt from Medallion's Mandatory Mask policy? I counted three separate instances in your client's factum wherein they referred to my stated exemption from the Mandatory Mask Regulation (The City of Toronto Mandatory Mask Bylaw is superseded by the Reopening Ontario Act legislation and applicable regulations) something which I have noted in my previous emails to Medallion, specifically:

• 2020Dec07 at 1755EST re 'Mandatory Mask Law Noncompliance: Exemptions'
• 2020Oct30 at 0401EDT re 'Re: Complaint (Non-Wearing Of Mask in Management Office) / 2 of 2'
• 2020Oct29 at 2307EDT re 'Re: Complaint (Non-Wearing Of Mask in Management Office) / 1 of 2'

I have discussed in person and shown the improperly trained desk jockey staff where in the policy there is provision for Mandatory Mask Exemptions. I have also outlined to your client's staff that they can fined for non-compliance by the City of Toronto Bylaw Enforce, sued in the Human Rights Tribunal, sued in Superior Court (very expensive to retain a lawyer, and only a fool represents himself, right?) and I've heard some rumours about a Provincial Reopening Ontario Enforcement Team that's supposed to be able to crack down on businesses not in compliance with the Reopening Ontario Act.

The fact that you, Mr Melchers, have staked your license on the fact that your client is apparently treating those who cannot, or consequent to ideological, medical, or any other specification choose not to, wear a mask or other face covering. Your client has been informed numerous times in person, there is minimally sufficient signage in its residences, and I have informed your client directly on at least three separate instances via email, of the fact that there are exemptions to the Mandatory Mask bylaw, and the Mandatory Mask caveat under the regulations to the Reopening Ontario Act.

So what do they do? They embellish, fabricate, or otherwise distort reality to suit their own agenda.. Sorta like the fact that they improperly calculated the time periods for the Eviction Notice. Or did they just think I wouldn't crunch the numbers? You had a responsibility to your client to encourage to act legally and lawfully, and to caution them against being a complete and utter twat. I find it rather amusing that your client's factum ends on the note:

"The above is in violation of your Lease Agreement, the Residential Tenancies Act, the Fire Code, the Occupational Health and Safety Act, and Medallion Corporation's Workplace Harassment and Violence policy."

I'll boil this down to the pertinent aspects. You're violating not just the Respondents' Human Rights, their lawful enjoyment of their Residential Tenancy contract, but you're also causing many other tenants to feel they are being persecuted and/or otherwise abused. The fact that you're assisting Medallion Corporation to file knowingly false and vexatious paperwork might be construed as facilitating strategic legal action against tenants in a residential building.

You know this, of course, because you wrote a paper in 2015 entitled 'Can You Stop Multiple LTB Applications By A “Vexatious” Tenant?' So, you're enabling your client to improperly threaten the retaliatory revocation (breach) of a Tenancy Agreement. So, either you're really stupid, or your client is lying to you. I'm inclined towards the latter, given the propensity of your client to fabricating or otherwise distorting information to justify its actions.

I don't want to mess with you because you look like a humble plains boy (I'm from rural Western Canada myself), and I wouldn't enjoy going after you and Medallion. I'm just one man, and not even a lawyer! So, please play by the rules so we don't have any further misunderstandings. I'm humbly recommending to you that you counsel your client to seek a conciliatory resolution via arbitration.
And incidentally, could 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 abd defence to any proposed litigation.

Respectfully submitted,
--
####################################
####################################
####################################
 

PS: I'm not a lawyer or legal scholar, so how dare you encourage and enable your client to persecute myself and other tenants with vexatious quasi-ligation? Shame on you, buddy. I've copied the Law Society, the Bar Association, and someone else in your firm who might be able to help prevent you from making a total ass out of your self and your client. This is your only warning; play nice.

Cc:

• Ontario Law Society, Complaints & Compliance
• Ontario Bar Association, Executive Director & General Counsel, Elizabeth A. Hall
• Rocco Galati, Constitutional Rights Centre Inc
• Denis Rancourt, Ontario Civil Liberties Association

Attachments:

• Limited-Access-to-Medallion.jpg
• 2020Dec07 Mandatory Mask Law Noncompliance Exemptions.pdf
• 2020oct29 Complaint NonWearing Of Mask in Management Office — 1 of 2.pdf
• 2020Oct30 Complaint NonWearing Of Mask in Management Office — 2 of 2.pdf

Reference for disciplinary purposes against Mr Melchers:

Can You Stop Multiple LTB Applications By A “Vexatious” Tenant?

So what can a Landlord do to limit legal costs, wasted time, and
uncertainty due to multiple applications filed by a vexatious tenant?
A solution lies in Rule A8 of the Social Justice Tribunals of
Ontario’s Common Rules, which form part of the LTB’s Rules of Practice
(the “Rules“).
Rule A8 deals with “abuse of process”. Rule A8.2, in particular,
allows the LTB to declare a tenant to be a “vexatious litigant”;
dismiss the application as an abuse of process; and, require the
vexatious litigant to obtain special permission from the LTB before
s/he can file any new Application, or take any further steps in an
outstanding application.