Eviction

This LTB appeal will be heard on June 14, 2023, by a Zoom virtual hearing.  The appellant Mr. Testes has requested accommodation in order, as put in his email, that he and his wife not be harassed or subject to malevolent actions at their court hearing.

I derived enjoyment from trolling the shit outta them I've had run-ins with a few "just doing my job" dumbass businesses, This is now going to change. The lulz were good, but it hurts to laugh now.

The Registrar of the Divisional Court certifies that, pursuant to Section 25(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S. 22, the Order of the Landlord and Tenant Board dated February 9, 2022 and February 17, 2022 have been stayed by an appeal to this court.

Please find attached the Certificate of Stay issued for the above noted matter. Toronto Divisional Court File No 107/22.
The cost to file the appeal is $229 for the appeal, $31 for the stay and $608 to perfect.

Please take this email as Notice on Notice of Motion for Leave to Appeal the Order of Randy Aulbrook made on February 9th, 2022. This decision was rife with both factual and procedural errors, but for this Motion I will deal with the errors in law.

Now, just wait to see these pieces of shit (Medallion Corporation, Sherbourne Place, Cohen Highley LLP, et al.) try to drag us out of our apartment on Monday, February 21st, 2022 or immediately thereafter (capricious acts of insolence are pst for the course with Sherbourne Die Statte.

Here are the written submissions I made to the LTB in case they denied my Request to Reschedule a Hearing (62) submitted on October 7th of 2021 at 0320EDT and cited case law which renders a rescheduled hearing appropriate in the case of the death of an immediate family member.

Mr Bayles was acting with aggression towards my wife, and was unresponsive to my reasonable explanation that there are exemptions to the "Mandatory Mask Wearing Policy". Mr Bayles has no right accosting tenants with his demands that they cover their face or wear other clothing. That is improper.

“The law of contracts is not exempt from basic requirements of honesty and fairness, One need look no further than the existing jurisprudence of this court, which recognizes the duty of good faith in employment, insurance and tendering agreements, in addition to cases like this one where a discretionary power is exercised for an improper purpose so as to defeat a party’s legitimate contractual objectives.”