Thursday, September 7, 2017

THE CASE OF THE MISSING DOCUMENTS, FROM THE DIVISIONAL COURT FILE, IN TORONTO.

A PUBLIC REQUEST, TO THE REGISTRAR, OF THE DIVISIONAL COURT,  LOCATED AT 130 QUEEN STREET WEST, IN TORONTO, TO FIND OUT WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO MY MISSING COURT FILE DOCUMENT?.

To:  The Registrar, of the Divisional Court, Tashekah Gentles.

Could you answer this pertinent question, as to why an important document, such as the Certificate of Perfection, which is necessary in order to proceed with my Appeal, in the Divisional Court, has now gone missing from the file?. Could it be tied in with the overall conspiracy, by Canadian courts, to hider and or to block all of my efforts in those courts?. On the day that my Appeal book and Compendium and Factum were filed with the Divisional Court, in regards to my appeal, from the Landlord and Tenant Board, you were also present at the counter and witnessed that the document in question was also filed. In my subsequent conversation with you, in regard to that matter, you said that it may have been an error, on the part of the staff.  Well, if that is the case and it was not done deliberately, then I am requesting that you fix the problem. 

We know that the Divisional Court, has already acted and in its typically usual bias manner against me, has also not allowed my appeal to be heard earlier. That is, to shorten the time of the Appeal, which can often be a very long process in the courts. According to the Judge of the Divisional Court, who is also the Administrative judge of that court, Judge I. Northheimer, and to whom you did take my matter to, (without me filing a formal motion to have the time shortened), he had also denied me the request to shorten the time of the Appeal and had responded that if I wanted that to be done, to file a motion and to make the request to the court. (In that case, it would have just gone before another judge like him, who more than likely, would not have granted that request anyways. Thanks to the conspiracy in the Canadian courts against me. And which also involved ALL judges, and justices of the peace and administrative staff, of the court.  Which brings me back to the issue, of why my Certificate of Perfection, was not filed on your electronic system? And why do the Divisional Court, has the Appeal showing up as not being perfected?. I even perfected my Appeal in less than a week, just so that the matter could be heard sooner, than the usual time. Which as I said before, usually take months to be heard. Now after waiting for the 60 days for the respondent to file his response, (which he has not done), I am now being told by the court, that "My appeal is not perfected as yet". Which you know to be an error, on the part of the court. So again, I ask you, as the Registrar of the court, to fix this problem, as I am sure that it was one of the administrative staff, who has made this "error". In fact, I believe that it was also done deliberately. Now you have my opinion on the matter.
I do not have to tell you here, that, removing documents from files, hat would either cause unnecessary delays and for other more insidious reasons, would indicate an attempt by such a Divisional Court staff, to interfere with the normal procedures of the court and with the appellant's
right to have her matter by the court without such hindrances. And also without a court staff trying to impede justice in this case. I hope that it was an oversight and that the matter can now proceed properly, as it should have been. I have had many dealings with this court and do know that my matters has NEVER been treated fairly by this court. Let's hope that an administrative staff, attempting to obstruct justice in this case, is also now not an issue that I would have to deal with at this time. In the past I have seen such attempts made by Rina and others in that office, to hinder my matters from proceeding as they should, in the Divisional Court. And I have also made complaints about her actions to the previous Registrar. As for my dealings with the scheduling clerk, Sobey Boweja, I also hold the same sentiment, in this case.

As the Registrar, I am also publicly asking you, how my document could go missing and  not be filed as it should have been, in this case?. (Especially since you also witnessed it being filed) and what has really happened in this case?.  I also expect you and the Divisional court, to due its due diligence and not to delay my matter any further, as you are aware that it is also of an urgent nature, still,  in regards to my appeal and I would like to prevent any further delays, to having my appeal heard as soon as possible. As this office already know, that this is a matter that the Landlord and Tenant Board also did not address and this was the primary nature of this appeal, concerning that error of law, when the Board dismissed the matter without holding a hearing, by the Member, Louise Horton.

Also, since I spoke with you last, maybe you can also explain to me, publicly, why the actual file, was not in the administrative office of the court, but in some records department?. And as I also posed this question to you directly?. That since the Appeal has not been heard by the court as yet, shouldn't the file be made available, so that if either party comes to the court to file any thing, it is also available to them?. Who at the Divisional Court, as far as the administrative staff are concerned, are also trying to undermine my matter before that court?.

As this may not have been an error on your part, but on the part of your staff, I will now expect you to investigate this matter further, as I have also requested on your voice mail, after one of the clerks in the Divisional Court, Rina, also refused to either look into the matter, as she had said that she would do, or even to get back to me about it. What she did was to hang the telephone up when I asked her to transfer my call to you, in order for you to investigate, both her actions, as well as those of the other clerks in the Divisional Court, whose job it was to file those documents and to update that information on your electronic system. So that this information is available to everyone, involved in the proceeding. According to my conversation with you, you said that you would.

 I have asked you to look into the request of the missing document, my Certificate of Perfection that was filed, along with my Appeal Book and Compendium and Factum, as you well know and have also witness and which has now gone missing from my file. As reported to me, by one of your delinquent and may I also add disgustingly rude staff, Rina, today, as I wanted to know about the dates, that would also be provided by the court, to have my appeal heard and in  in regards to my landlord and tenant matter.
It was not enough that the Administrative Judge, I Northeimer, has denied my request to have the matter heard sooner, but now I'm told that my Certificate of Perfection which I also filed, has now gone missing. At the very least, it was not filed on your electronic system, with the court and that also makes all of the difference, because that is where both of the parties, as well as the court, keep up to date, with the processes, involving the Appeal.

As an afterthought:

To those members of the public who are not aware of the details of this matter, here is a synopsis of the events leading up to the appeal, in the Divisional Court. I, as a tenant was forced out of my home by Canadian government officials, meaning those in the fire services. I was not evicted by the Landlord and Tenant Board, nor did my landlord ever applied for an order evicting me as a tenant. Yet, as part of the conspiracy involved, the landlord and Tenant Board, decided not to hear the matter and to dismiss it at the preliminary stage. And thereby committing a whole bunch of errors and wrongs against me, as a tenant. Including, some of the most important ones, which was to leave me homeless and without any kind of compensation, to which I am also entitled as a tenant, under the Residential Tenancies Act. Which is precisely why the Member, Louise Horton, dismissed the matter and without holding a hearing. Most people has never heard of such a thing, as that which was done to me, by the Canadian authorities and the Landlord and Tenant Board. It is beyond the presumption of bias against me, by the Landlord and Tenant Board Member. It is also about the denial of natural justice, in my case, and how the entire matter, was designed to bring about that result. Now I am also seeing the extension of that with the Divisional Court and it is also not the first time. Such actions won't be tolerated by me. And should not be tolerated by anyone.








Wednesday, September 6, 2017

A FORMER ADVOCATE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND FREEDOM, IS NOW ACCUSED OF GROSS HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS.

NOBEL PEACE PRIZE LAUREATE, AUNG SAN SUU KYI, OF MYANMAR, FORMERLY BURMA, HAS BEEN ACCUSED OF HUMAN RIGHTS ATTROCITIES, AGAINST THE MUSLIM MINORITY, IN MYANMAR.


AUNG SAN SUU LYI, HAS TURNED HERSELF INTO A DICTATOR, THOUGH NOT OFFICIALLY, THE LEADER OF THE COUNTRY. SHE HAS BEEN ACCUSED OF ETHNIC CLEANSING, OF THE ROHINGYA MUSLIM MINORITY, IN MYANMAR.
Aung San Suu Kyi, was a 1991 Nobel Peace Prize Winner.




THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE COMMITTEE, HAS PUBLICLY STATED, THAT HER AWARD WILL NOT BE REVOKED!.
"A peace prize has never been revoked and the committee does not issue condemnations or censure laureates", So says former Norwegian politician and Committee member. He continued. "The principle we follow is the decision is not a declaration of saint". "When the decision has been made and the award has been given, that ends the responsibility of the Committee".
We know the people who give out the award are also exceptionally MAD, because they have also given the award to George Bush Jr. and Barak Obama! George Bush Jr. as most people believed, should also be tried for war crimes. Along with George Bush Sr. Aung San Suu Kyi, has publicly stated that the sufferings of the Rohingya Muslim minority, in her country, is not an "ethnic cleansing". No one expected her to keep silent on the matter, has she has done so far, rarely commenting on the issue. But more and more accusations has been thrown at her, over the crisis. They say that silence is agreement and Aung San Suu Kyi, has chosen to not speak out on issue.  That certainly says a lot.















Tuesday, September 5, 2017

THE OAS, HAS NOT LIVED UP TO ITS OWN STANDARDS, WHEN IT COMES TO CORRUPTION.


THE OAS IS RIFE WITH CORRUPTION. TAKEN FROM A FIRST HAND ACCOUNT, BUT THERE ARE ALSO PLENTY OF OTHER REPORTS, TO BACK UP WHAT I AM SAYING. THE OAS IS JUST ANOTHER US GOVERNMENT CONTROLLED ORGANIZATION, ACTING AS AFRONT AGENCY FOR THE US GOVERNMENT. WHOSE MAIN GOAL IS TO TAKE THE FOCUS OFF OF THE US (AND CANADA) AND TO GO AFTER THOSE LATIN AMERICAN AND CARIBBEAN COUNTRIES, THAT THE US WANTS TO TAKE OVER.
I HAVE BEEN NAIVE FOR A LONG TIME, OVER WHY THE OAS AND THE IACHR, REFUSES TO GO AFTER CANADA, FOR ITS HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSE AGAINST ME. NOW I KNOW THE REAL REASON. AS FAR AS THE OAS AND ITS OWN CORRUPTION?. CANADA AND THE US GOVERNMENTS, WILL NEVER BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE, FOR COMMITTING HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSE, AGAINST ITS PEOPLE.
CAN IT GET ANY WORST?. IF THE OAS WILL NOT HELP HUMAN RIGHTS VICTIMS, BECAUSE OF ITS  OWN CORRUPTION, THEN IT SHOULD ALSO CEASED TO EXIST. IT HAS BECOME TOTALLY USELESS.

OAS, Secretary General, Luis Almagro. He is just another puppet, of the US government and Washington D.C. backed
organization, which was created to further the US agenda, in those Latin American and Caribbean countries.
Without the USA's involvement, also, becoming too obvious, to the public. Countries like Venezuela, which is a target of the
US government and for several reasons, (including for it's oil) has faced major accusations from the OAS. It is a primary target of the OAS, over its alleged human rights abuse, and corrupt government. The real reason of course, is something entirely different.







THE BIG QUESTION IS, WHY THE OAS, WILL NOT GO AFTER, THE USA AND CANADA?

HOW DOES THE OAS PLAYED THE GAME?.  IT DOES WHAT THE US GOVERNMENT TELLS IT TO DO, PLAIN AND SIMPLE. IF YOU HAVE EVER WONDERED, WHY THE USA AND CANADA, HAS NEVER COME UNDER FIRE, OVER THEIR HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSE, NOW YOU KNOW WHY.
THE OAS IS FULL OF CORRUPTION. AT LEAST TWO SECRETARY GENERALS AND A FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE OAS, HAS RESIGNED OVER CORRUPTION CHARGES. AND THE CURRENT PRESIDENT, LUIS ALMAGRO, HAS ALSO THREATENED TO RESIGNED, SOME MONTHS AGO, AS A WAY OF CONTROLLING THE VENEZUELAN ELECTION. IT WAS A TACTIC THAT WAS IMPOSED ON HIM BY HIS BOSS, IN WASHINGTON D.C. AND THE US CAPTIAL.  ALMAGRO HAD NO CHOICE BUT TO FOLLOW HIS ORDERS. BUT IF HE THOUGHT THAT HE HAD SOME PEOPLE FOOLED, OR IF HE WAS TRYING TO ELECIT ANY SYMPATHY, OVER HIS SOCALLED INTEGRITY, IT ALSO DID NOT WORK.  THE VENEZUELAN GOVERNMENT, CERTAINLY WAS NOT FOOLED. AND NEITHER WERE SOME OF THE OTHER ORGANIZATIONS IN THE KNOW, LIKE CELAC. (OF NOTE HERE, IS THE FACT, THAT, CELAC MEMBER COUNTRIES, ALSO DO NOT INCLUDE BOTH THE USA AND CANADA). CELAC, OR THE COMMUNITY OF LATIN AMERICAN AND CARIBBEAN STATES, TOOK OVER FROM CALC, OR THE LATIN AMERICAN AND CARIBBEAN SUMMIT ON INTEGRATION AND DEVELOPMENT. CALC, WAS FORMED BACKED IN 1986, AS AN OAS REPLACEMENT. IT DID NOT HELP THAT HUGO CHAVEZ, THE FORMER VENEZUELAN PRESIDENT, WHO DIED ON MARCH 5, 2013, WAS AT ONE TIME, A LEADER OF THE CELAC SUMMIT BACK IN 2011.
ROOSEVELT SKERITT, PRIME MINISTER OF DOMINICA, AND A MEMEBER OF CELAC, HAS DEMANDED THAT LUIS ALMAGRO, DO IN FACT RESIGNED FROM THE OAS. SKERITT'S POSITION IS THAT CELAC, WHICH INCLUDES THOSE COUNTRIES, WHICH MOSTLY DO NOT GO ALONG, WITH THE USA'S BACKED AGENDA, TO WHICH THE OAS HAS PROMOTED OVER THE YEARS. (AND CONSPICIOUSLY MISSING, FROM THOSE COUNTRIES, IS THE LITTLE ISLAND OF JAMAICA. A COUNTRY WHICH IS SOLIDLY BACKED BY THE US GOVERNMENT, AND IS ALSO A PUPPET OF THAT COUNTRY).


THE QUESTION SHOULD BE, WHY WOULD LUIS ALMAGRO RESIGNS, IF VENEZUELA HOLDS A FREE ELECTION?. ISN'T THAT WHAS THE OAS IS ALL ABOUT?. DEMOCRACY?. SO THE OAS DOES NOT WANT THE VENZUELAN GOVERNMENT, TO HOLD A FREE ELECTION, TO HELP TOPPLE THE CURRENT PRESIDENT, NICHOLAS MADURO, AND SO MUCH SO THAT IT'S LEADER, IS ALSO WILLING TO RESIGN OVER IT. THE FACT THAT LUIS ALMAGRO, HAS THREATENED TO RESIGN OVER VENEZUELA'S ELECTION, PROVES THAT THE OAS IS ALSO BACKED, BY WASHINTON'S POLITICAL AGENDA, ONE HUNDRED PERCENT. THE OAS IS NOTHING BUT A PUPPT ON A STRING, TO KEP ANY OF THOSE COUNTRIES UNDER THE OAS'S JURISDICTION IN LINE.


THE OAS CONVENTION AGAINST CORRUPTION, IS ONE SYSTEM THAT WAS PUT IN PLACE BY THE OAS TO DEAL WITH GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION IN THE AMERICAS AND THE CARIBBEAN COUNTRIES.  BUT WHO WOULD HAVE THOUGHT THAT THE OAS ITSELF WOULD ALSO BE DISCREDITED OVER ITS OWN CORRUPTION?

THE OAS AS THE REGIONAL BODY FOR NORTH AMERICA, SOUTH AND CENTRAL AMERICA, AS WELL AS THE CARIBBEAN, HAS NOT LIVED UP TO ITS OWN STRINGENT STANDARDS WHEN IT COMES TO DEALING WITH CORRUPTION. SO HOW CAN ANYONE THINK THAT THE OAS IS ALSO FIT, TO INVESTIGATE CORRUPTION, IN REGARDS TO THOSE COUNTRIES, THAT IT HAS JURISDICTION OVER?.  I AM TALKING THE ONES THAT HAS COOPERATED (AND CANADA HAS NOT DONE SO, BUT IT WOULD ALSO BE A MISTAKE TO UNDERESTIMATE, IT’S INFLUENCE WITH THE OAS, ESPECIALLY IN REGARDS ITS OWN CORRUPTION).


THE OAS GOES AROUND POLICING THOSE COUNTRIES AND SOME OF THEM LIKE VENEZUELA, IT HAS ALSO DELIBERATELY TARGETED, IN REGARDS TO THEIR ALLEGED CORRUPTION. EVEN THE SMALL COUNTRY OF JAMAICA, DID NOT ESCAPE AN OAS REPORT ON CORRUPTION BACK IN 2014, DESPITE JAMAICA HAVING PROVIDED, SEVERAL CITIZENS WHO ARE ON THE OAS STAFF. AND JAMAICA IS A CORRUPT COUNTRY BY THE WAY. FOR A SMALL LITTLE ISLAND, IT IS BIG ON CORRUPTION. FROM THE OFFICE OF THE PRIME MINISTER ALL THE WAY DOWN, YOU WILL FIND THAT IT’S GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS OFTEN ACTS WITH IMPUNITY, AND FACES NO REAL PENALTIES OVER THEIR ACTIONS. I MYSELF HAS DEALT WITH A FEW OF THEM, DIRECTLY AND KNOWS THIS TO BE TRUE. INCLUDING, SOME OF THE ONES HOLDING POSITIONS IN CANADA AND ON BEHALF OF THAT GOVERNMENT. THEY INCLUDE THE HIGH COMMISSIONER OF JAMAICA, JANET MILLER, THE CONSULATE GENERAL IN TORONTO AND ALICIA TAYLOR, A CONSUL IN THE CONSULATE GENERAL’S OFFICE AND SOME OTHER ONES. BUT THE FOCUS OF THIS ARTICLE IS THE OAS, NOT SOME LITTLE  COUNTRY LIKE JAMAICA, THAT FOLLOWS THE NORTH AMERICAN COUNTRIES, LIKE A LAP DOG.
AND WHICH, ALSO, UNLIKE VENEZUELA, HAS NO REAL NATURAL RESOURCES AND THEREFORE NO SOURCE OF WEALTH, OTHER THAN BAUXITE. WHICH OF COURSE, THE TWO COUNTRIES IN QUESTION, CANADA AND THE USA, HAS ALSO TAKEN OVER, EXCLUSIVELY, FOR A VERY LONG TIME. TO BOTH THE DETRIMENT, OF THE JAMAICAN PEOPLE, AND ESPECIALLY THOSE LIVING IN CLOSE PROXIMITY, TO THOSE BAUXITE COMPANIES, WHO HAS BEEN DYING OFF WITH ALL KINDS OF CANCERS, FROM THE TOXINS LEAKED INTO THE WATER SUPPLY, FROM BOTH ALCAN AND ALCOA COMPANIES, IN RURAL JAMAICA. AND ALSO TO THE JAMAICAN ECONOMY. BUT OF MORE INTEREST TO ME AT THIS TIME AND TO ALSO MOST OTHER INTELLIGENT PERSONS, IS THE OAS AND DEALING WITH ITS OWN CORRUPTION, ESPECIALLY REGARDING THOSE COUNTRIES THAT COMMIT FLAGRANT HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSE. AS FAR AS COUNTRY OF VENEZUELA IS CONCERNED AND WHY IT HAS BECOME THE TARGET OF BOTH THE OAS AND THE US GOVERNMENT?. COULD IT BE BECAUSE VENEZUELA IS ONE OF THE RICHEST OIL PRODUCING COUNTRIES ON EARTH?. YET ALSO DESCRIBED AS "ONE OF THE POOREST COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD". COULD THE USA BE AFTER THAT COUNTRY'S OIL RESERVES?. IS THAT WHY ITS EVILS ARE SO, WELL, EVIL?. AND THE REAL REASONS BEHIND THE SANCTIONS AGAINST THAT COUNTRY?. WHY DOES THE OAS TARGETS ONE COUNTRY, LIKE VENEZUELA, OR EVEN CUBA, AND NOT SAY, CANADA?. WHY IS THE OAS COVERING UP THE HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSE OF BOTH CANADA AND THE US, DELIBERATELY. DOES THE PROVERBIAL SAYING, ONE DOES NOT BITE THE HAND THAT FEED YOU, MATTERS IN THIS CASE. OBVIOUSLY IT DOES. AS MUCH AS THE CARIBBEAN AND LATIN AMERICAN COUNTRIES, UNDER CELAC, HAS TRIED TO DISMANTLE THE OAS, THROUGH THEIR ORGANIZED EFFORTS, THE OAS WILL UNFORTUNATELY CONTINUE TO EXIST, AS LONG AS THE US AGENDA FOR THOSE REGIONS EXIST. THE OAS IS A FRONT ORGANIZATION, THAT WAS CREATED BY THE US AND THE POWERS THAT BE, TO FORWARD THE AGENDA OF THAT COUNTRY AND OTHERS LIKE IT. IT WILL ONLY CEASE TO EXIST WHEN THEY WANT IT TO BE SO. OTHERWISE IT WILL STILL CONTINUE TO PROMOTE THE US AND CANADAS INTERESTS AND TO ALSO IGNORE THOSE COUNTRIES HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES.

THE BEST THAT THE PUBLIC CAN DO TO TOPPLE THAT ORGANIZATION, IS TO CUT OFF ITS FUNDING. LIKE THE IACHR AND MANY OF THOSE OTHER USELESS HUMAN RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS, THEY ARE ALSO ALWAYS ASKING FOR MONEY ON THEIR WEBSITES. DO NOT FUND THEM. ONE YOU NOW KNOW THAT THE OAS IS ALSO GUILTY OF THE SAME THINGS WHICH IT HAS SWORN TO PROTECT, LIKE HUMAN RIGHTS AND PEOPLE'S LIVES, BUT DO  NOT DO SO, WHY SHOULD YOU CONTINUE TO SUPPORT IT?. I HAVE PERSONALLY SUFFERED BECAUSE THE OAS AND THE IACHR DID NOT TAKE ANY ACTIONS AGAINST CANANDA, OVER ITS HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSE AGAINST ME. THERE ARE ALSO MANY OTHER VICTIMES LIKE ME, WHO HAS ALSO BEEN DENIED THE HELP THAT THEY NEEDED FROM THE OAS AND THE IACHR, DUE TO THOSE ORGANIZATIONS OWN CORRUPTION.

FOR THE SAKE OF HUMAN RIGHTS VICTIMS, IN NORTH AMERICA, LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN, DO NOT SUPPORT THE OAS, FINANCIALLY. IT SERIOUSLY IS A TERROR ORGANIZATION, BEING COMPLICIT IN HELPING TO CAUSE INJURY TO VICTIMS, OF THEIR GOVERNMENT'S HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSE, BY TURNING A BLIND EYE AND NOT LIFTING A FINGER TO HELP THOSE VICTIMS. PETITIONS AFTER PETITIONS COMING FROM CANANDA, HAS BEEN IGNORED BY THE OAS. THE OAS HAS BEEN PROVEN GUILTY IN CAUSING MORE HARM AND MORE DEATHS, IN REGARDS TO HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSE, AND WILL CONTINUE TO DO THE SAME, IF ITS ACTIONS ARE IGNORED. AGAIN I SAY, STOP THE FUNDING TO THE OAS, IN ORDER TO STOP ITS OWN CORRUPTION. IN THAT WAY, YOU WILL BE HELPING THE VICTIMS OF HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSE.

Monday, July 31, 2017

CANADA, PUTS BLOGGER, VALERIE GUILLAUME, THROUGH TORTURE AND OTHER CRUEL AND UNUSUAL TREATMENT.

SHOULD CANADA'S ACTIONS, BE IGNORED, FOR CARRYING OUT TORTURE AGAINST BLOGGER?.  AND FOR BLOCKING EVERY EFFORT OF THIS BLOGGER, VALERIE GUILLAUME, TO GET LEGAL PROTECTION, UNDER ITS OWN LAWS, AS WELL AS UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAWS?.


LOUISE HORTON: LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD MEMBER, ACCUSED TENANT (AND THIS BLOGGER), OF "ABUSING THE PROCESS", ON TUESDAY JULY 26TH, AFTER THE TENANT TRIED TO GET A HEARING, AT THE L&T BOARD, OVER AN ILLEGAL EVICTION, BY HER LANDLORD, WITHOUT AN EVICTION ORDER, FROM THE L&T BOARD. HORTON, DISMISSED THE MATTER, WITHOUT HAVING A HEARING, LEAVING THE TENANT WITHOUT ANY PROTECTION, UNDER THE ACT.
(The tenant now has to file an application, with the Divisional Court, to have the matter addressed. The Div. Court, can either address the matter, directly, or send it back the L&T Board, to be addressed).





BLOGGER, VALERIE GUILLAUME, HAS BEEN ILLEGALLY EVICTED AND WITHOUT AN EVICTION ORDER, BEING ISSUED BY THE LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD. THE BLOGGER'S LANDLORD, YINGGUO AI, HAS NEVER APPLIED TO THE BOARD, FOR AN ORDER, TO EVICT THE TENANT. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD, HAS ALSO NEVER ISSUED AN EVICTION ORDER, AGAINST THE TENANT.


YET, THE TENANT AND ALSO BLOGGER, HAS HAD TO FACE INCREDILE HARDSHIP, FROM BEING FORCED OUT OF HER HOME, AS PART OF CANADA'S MKULTA AND OTHER FORMS OF PYCHOLOGICAL ABUSE, TARGETED AGAINST THIS BLOGGER.

THE TENANT'S LEGAL RIGHTS, ARE BEING ABUSED.

THE ACTIONS, OF THE LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD, IN THIS CASE, HAS DIVERTED SO MUCH, FROM NORAL PRACTICE, IN REGARDS TO FAIRNESS OF THE PROCEDURE, INVOLVING THE TENANT, THAT MORE THAN ONE SECTIONS OF THE LAW, HAS BEEN VIOLATED. THOSE RIGHTS OF THE TENANT, UNDER THE RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES ACT, THOSE UNDER THE CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS, AND EVEN THOSE UNDER THE CRIMINAL CODE (FOR CORRUPTION, BY PUBLIC OFFICIALS) SHOULD ALSO APPLY HERE, AND IN THIS CASE. (AND AGAINST THOSE ADJUDICATORS INVOLVED).




1. WHY HAS THIS TENANT, BEEN DENIED, A HEARING AT THE BOARD?. THE LATEST EFFORT ON JULY 26TH, WHEN SHE WAS TOLD THAT SHE WAS "ABUSING THE PROCESS", BY FILING AN APPLICATION, TO DEAL WITH THE ILLEGAL EVICTION. THAT WAS CARRIED OUT AGAINST HER, BY THE LANDLORD (WHO ALSO CHANGED THE LOCKS ON THE DOOR, ILLEGALY, ON APRIL 1ST, WITHOUT AN ORDER FROM THE LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD), AND BY THE TORONTO FIRE SERVICES.




2. THE CLEAREST EVIDENCE, OF GOVERNMENT ABUSE, AS ALL EFFORTS BY THE BLOGGER/TENANT, TO GET ANY LEGAL REMEDY FOR HER SITUATUION, HAS ALSO BEEN BLOCKED, BY THOSE CANADIAN AUTHORITIES. BOTH WITHIN CANADA AND ALSO OUTSIDE OF THAT COUNTRY.




3. THE ILLEGAL EVICTION, OF THE TENANT/BLOGGER, WAS THE LATEST EFFORT MADE, BY CANADIAN GOVERNMENT, TO DESTABILIZED THE BLOGGER. AND TO CAUSE DETRIMENTAL HARM, TO THE BLOGGER, BY INFLICTING PHYSICAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL SUFFERING, UPON THE BLOGGER.




4. THERE IS AN ABUNDANCE OF EVIDENCE, TO SUGGEST, THAT THE ACTIONS OF THE LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD AND BY MEMBER, LOUISE HORTON, ON JULY 26TH TO DENY THE TENANT A HEARING, WAS ALSO INTENDED, TO BLOCK THE TENANT FROM GETTING ANY FINANCIAL COMPENSATION, REGARDING THE ILLEGAL EVICTION. 


5. ONLY THE LANDLORD AND BOARD (AS WELL AS THE COURT), HAS THE LEGAL JURISDICTION TO EVICT A TENANT, IN ONTARIO. NOT THE FIRE SERVICES, NOR ANY LANDLORD. LEGALLY, THE TENANT/BLOGGER , IS ALSO STILL ENTITLED TO THE SAME PROTECTION, AS A TENANT, UNDER THE RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES ACT. INCLUDING THE LEGAL RIGHT TO BE HOUSED, BY THE LANDLORD, UNTIL SUCH A TIME, WHEN AN EVICTION ORDER, IS ISSUED AGAINST THE TENANT.




6. CURRENTLY, THERE IS NO SUCH ORDER, BY THE LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD, AGAINST THE TENANT. IN THE EYES OF THE BOARD, THE EVICTION ORDER IS NOT NECESSARY, SINCE IT HAS ALREADY ACCEPTED, THE ILLEGAL EVICTION OF THE TENANT, BY THE LANDLORD.  AND THAT CONTRARY TO THE RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES ACT, THE TENANT'S EFFORTS TO GET REHOUSED, BY THE LANDLORD, OR TO GET ANY COMPENSATION, FOR HIS ACTIONS AGAINST HER, HAS ALSO BEEN
DENIED BY THE BOARD. AND IN ORDER TO CONTINUE TO CARRY OUT TORTURE AND OTHER CRUEL AND UNUSUAL TREATMENT, OF THE TENANT/BLOGGER.




7. THE TENANT ALSO, HAS NEVER RECOVERED, FROM THE LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD, ANY EXPENSES THAT SHE HAS PAID OUT, AS A RESULT OF THE LANDLORD AND/OR FIRE SERVICES ACTIONS, REGARDING THE ILLEGAL EVICTION.




8. BECAUSE THE TENANT'S RENTAL UNIT, WAS DEEMED TO BE UNSAFE, BY THE FIRE SERVICES AND ALSO WAS IN NEED OF REPAIR AND OR RENOVATIONS, TO BRING IT UP TO FIRE CODE STANDARDS, THE TENANT IS ALSO ENTITLED TO RECOVER COMPENSATIONS, UNDER THE RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES ACT, SECTIONS 37(1), 48-57, INCLUDING 3 MONTHS RENT, UNDER EACH CATEGORY OF THE ACT, WHERE THE TENANT'S RENTAL UNIT WAS CONFISCATED BY THE LANDLORD, (REGARDLESS OF HIS REASONS ON HIS PART), BUT UNDER THE ACT, FOR RENOVATIONS AND OR REPAIRS.


Below are portion of the Residential Tenancies Act 2006, as well as the new law, The Rental Fairness Act, both of which has been ignored, in recognizing the rights of this particular tenant, Valerie Guillaume. And this should be viewed as part of the ongoing AND discriminatory practice against this individual, by the Canadian government, in its effort to destabilized this person.


Residential Tenancies Act
Part V
                         Security of Tenure and Termination of Tenancies


Security of Tenure
Termination only in accordance with the Act
37.(1) A tenancy may be terminated only in accordance with this Act. 2006, c.17, s. 37(1)

(In other words, where there was no order issued by the Board, the tenancy is still in effect).
Termination by notice

(2) If a notice of termination is given in accordance with this Act and the tenant vacates the rental unit in accordance with the notice, the tenancy is terminated on the termination date set out in the notice. 2006, c. 17, s. 37 (2).
Restriction on recovery of possession

39. A landlord shall not recover possession of a rental unit subject to a tenancy unless,



(a) the tenant has vacated or abandoned the unit; or


(b) an order of the Board evicting the tenant has authorized the possession.

2006, c. 17, s. 39.

(In other words, where there was no order issued by the Board, the tenancy is still in effect). As in my case, currently. Yet this has also been ignored, by the Board.
Notice of Termination - General
Notice of termination

43. (1) Where this Act permits a landlord or tenant to give a notice of termination, the notice shall be in a form approved by the Board and shall,

(a) identify the rental unit for which the notice is given;

(b) state the date on which the tenancy is to terminate; and

(c) be signed by the person giving the notice, or the person’s agent.

2006, c. 17, s. 43 (1).
Same

(2) If the notice is given by a landlord, it shall also set out the reasons and details respecting the termination and inform the tenant that,

(a) if the tenant vacates the rental unit in accordance with the notice, the tenancy terminates on the date set out in clause (1) (b);

(b) if the tenant does not vacate the rental unit, the landlord may apply to the Board for an order terminating the tenancy and evicting the tenant; and

(c) if the landlord applies for an order, the tenant is entitled to dispute the application.

2006, c. 17, s. 43 (2).
Notice, demolition, conversion or repairs

50. (1) A landlord may give notice of termination of a tenancy if the landlord requires possession of the rental unit in order to,

(a) demolish it;

(b) convert it to use for a purpose other than residential premises; or

(c) do repairs or renovations to it that are so extensive that they require a building permit and vacant possession of the rental unit.

2006, c. 17, s. 50 (1). Same


(2) The date for termination specified in the notice shall be at least 120 days after the notice is given and shall be the day a period of the tenancy ends or, where the tenancy is for a fixed term, the end of the term. 2006, c. 17, s. 50 (2).

Same


(3) A notice under clause (1) (c) shall inform the tenant that if he or she wishes to exercise the right of first refusal under section 53 to occupy the premises after the repairs or renovations, he or she must give the landlord notice of that fact in accordance with subsection 53 (2) before vacating the rental unit. 2006, c. 17, s. 50 (3).
Compensation, demolition or conversion

52. A landlord shall compensate a tenant in an amount equal to three months rent or offer the tenant another rental unit acceptable to the tenant if,

(a) the tenant receives notice of termination of the tenancy for the purposes of demolition or conversion to non-residential use;

(b) the residential complex in which the rental unit is located contains at least five residential units; and

(c) in the case of a demolition, it was not ordered to be carried out under the authority of any other Act.
2006, c. 17, s. 52.

Tenant's right of first refusal, repair or renovation

53. (1) A tenant who receives notice of termination of a tenancy for the purpose of repairs or renovations may, in accordance with this section, have a right of first refusal to occupy the rental unit as a tenant when the repairs or renovations are completed. 2006, c. 17, s. 53 (1).

Tenant's right of first refusal, repair or renovation


53. (1) A tenant who receives notice of termination of a tenancy for the purpose of repairs or renovations may, in accordance with this section, have a right of first refusal to occupy the rental unit as a tenant when the repairs or renovations are completed. 2006, c. 17, s. 53 (1).


Tenant's right to compensation, repair or renovation

54. (1) A landlord shall compensate a tenant who receives notice of termination of a tenancy under section 50 for the purpose of repairs or renovations in an amount equal to three months rent or shall offer the tenant another rental unit acceptable to the tenant if,

(a) the tenant does not give the landlord notice under subsection 53 (2) with respect to the rental unit;

(b) the residential complex in which the rental unit is located contains at least five residential units; and

(c) the repair or renovation was not ordered to be carried out under the authority of this or any other Act.

2006, c. 17, s. 54 (1).

 Same
(2) A landlord shall compensate a tenant who receives notice of termination of a tenancy under section 50 for the purpose of repairs or renovations in an amount equal to the rent for the lesser of three months and the period the unit is under repair or renovation if,

(a) the tenant gives the landlord notice under subsection 53 (2) with respect to the rental unit;

(b) the residential complex in which the rental unit is located contains at least five residential units; and

(c) the repair or renovation was not ordered to be carried out under the authority of this or any other Act.

2006, c. 17, s. 54 (2).

 Tenant's right to compensation, severance
55. A landlord of a residential complex that is created as a result of a severance shall compensate a tenant of a rental unit in that complex in an amount equal to three months rent or offer the tenant another rental unit acceptable to the tenant if,

(a) before the severance, the residential complex from which the new residential complex was created had at least five residential units;

(b) the new residential complex has fewer than five residential units; and

(c) the landlord gives the tenant a notice of termination under section 50 less than two years after the date of the severance.

2006, c. 17, s.55.

 Security of tenure, severance, subdivision
56. Where a rental unit becomes separately conveyable property due to a consent under section 53 of the Planning Act or a plan of subdivision under section 51 of that Act, a landlord may not give a notice under section 48 or 49 to a person who was a tenant of the rental unit at the time of the consent or approval. 2006, c. 17, s. 56.

Former tenant's application where notice given in bad faith:
(Note: You have a right as a former tenant, who has been illegally evicted, as I have been, to apply to the board for a hearing and to seek a redress, for this illegal action that was carried out against you. Only in my case, the L&T Board, has regarded it as an "abuse of process", as quoted by the Member, Louise Horton, to me on July 26th, at a hearing, in regards to the said matter. She, also, ceremoniously, dismissed the matter. So I was left without my rental accommodation, and also without any compensation, for the wrong done to me). In the view of the L&T Board, section 57 (see below) did not apply to me, as a tenant.

57. (1) The Board may make an order described in subsection (3) if, on application by a former tenant of a rental unit, the Board determines that,

(a) the landlord gave a notice of termination under section 48 in bad faith, the former tenant vacated the rental unit as a result of the notice or as a result of an application to or order made by the Board based on the notice, and no person referred to in clause 48 (1) (a), (b), (c) or (d) occupied the rental unit within a reasonable time after the former tenant vacated the rental unit;

(b) the landlord gave a notice of termination under section 49 in bad faith, the former tenant vacated the rental unit as a result of the notice or as a result of an application to or order made by the Board based on the notice, and no person referred to in clause 49 (1) (a), (b), (c) or (d) or 49 (2) (a), (b), (c) or (d) occupied the rental unit within a reasonable time after the former tenant vacated the rental unit; or

(c) the landlord gave a notice of termination under section 50 in bad faith, the former tenant vacated the rental unit as a result of the notice or as a result of an application to or order made by the Board based on the notice, and the landlord did not demolish, convert or repair or renovate the rental unit within a reasonable time after the former tenant vacated the rental unit.

2006, c. 17, s. 57 (1).
Time limitation

(2) No application may be made under subsection (1) more than one year after the former tenant vacated the rental unit. 2006, c. 17, s. 57 (2).
 Orders
(3) The orders referred to in subsection (1) are the following:

1. An order that the landlord pay a specified sum to the former tenant for,
i.
all or any portion of any increased rent that the former tenant has
incurred or will incur for a one-year period after vacating the rental unit, and

ii. reasonable out-of-pocket moving, storage and other like expenses that the former tenant has incurred or will incur.

2. An order for an abatement of rent.

3. An order that the landlord pay to the Board an administrative fine not exceeding the greater of $10,000 and the monetary jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court.

4. Any other order that the Board considers appropriate.

2006, c. 17, s. 57 (3).  (Note: the Landlord and Tenant Board, did not apply any of these sections, of the Residential Tenancies Act, in my case. What it has done is to dismiss my T2 application and also regarded it as "an abuse of process", on my part (to  reclaim my legal rights under the law). And by doing so has also accomplished two things. 1. To ensure that I never get back into my rental unit. (which was also the aim of the government officials, who started this whole process, against me, back in March 2017). 2. To ensure that I do not get the same treatment as other tenants, in the same situation, including, no financial compensation, to me. Either in recovering the financial loss, I have experienced, as a result of the illegal eviction, by the landlord and the T.O. Fire Services, or in receiving any damages awarded to me, as a result of the illegal actions taken against me, by those mentioned. Either way, it has achieved its goal, in destabilizing me by forcing me out of my home and also in causing me unnecessary hardship and suffering, through its corruption. And also the personal corruption, of those other Canadian government officials, who are also involved.


As A Follow Up, To The Matter, Mentioned Above:  On Friday, July 29th, I held a protest at the Landlord and Tenant Building, (which also housed the Family Court and other government offices). The public response was also encouraging, including, some members of the public, advising me to also get a petition signed, to removed the corrupt L&T Board Members, such as Louise Horton, Sylvia Watson and the Vice Chair, Egya Sangmuah, from their current positions, with the L&T Board. There will be further protests at the L&T Board, until I either get a hearing, or the Board members mentioned, are removed. There will also be a petition for the public to sign, to be sent to the Premiere of Ontario, and the Society of Adjudicators and Regulators, to get those persons removed, from their current positions. The unbelievable thing about it all, is that those same persons all have a legal background and knows about the law, when it comes to a fair process, involving a hearing. That they could act so corruptly, in my case, is beyond what any rational mind can comprehend, on the matter, beyond the fact that they should also face the worst penalty and consequences for their actions.







 







                           




Tuesday, July 25, 2017

LOUISE HORTON AND THE LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD, HAS DENIED ME A HEARING...




I was denied a hearing in order to block me from getting any compensation, by the Landlord and Tenant Board. The conspiracy by the Canadian government, to destroy me and to prevent me from being compensated for wrongs done to me. I want to hear from the UN about it and the IACHR. As well, as I want an update from the International Criminal Court, about the matter before that court, in regards to those Canadian government officials, that I have charged before that court.

Friday, July 21, 2017

CANADA'S HIGHEST COURT, RULED ON BESTIALITY: SUPREME COURT OF CANADA, DID NOT REGARD MAN, WHO COMMITTED BESTIALITY, AS A CRIME.

CANADIAN JUDGES, SHOULD JOIN, THE WALK OF SHAME.

CANADIAN LAW HAS FAILED TO PROTECT ANIMALS,WHO HAVE SUFFERED BESTIALITY, FROM HUMANS. IN A RECENT SUPREME COURT OF CANADA RULING, BACK IN 2016,  THE S.C.C.  HAS NARROWED THE SCOPE OF THE LAW,
CONCERNING ZOOPHILLIA AND BESTIALITY. IT REFUSED TO CHANGED THE OUTDATED LAW, TO INCLUDE OTHER ACTS, OTHER THAN FULL SEXUAL INTERCOURSE WITH AN ANIMAL. ORAL SEX IS OKAY WITH AN ANIMAL, THE S.C.C. SAYS. ANIMALS ARE ALSO IN NEED OF PROTECTION TOO, AGAINST SEXUAL PREDATORS, UNDER THE LAW.




BLAME THIS SUPREME COURT JUDGE, JUSTICE THOMAS CROMWELL, FOR UPHELDING, THE CRUEL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS, IN THIS CASE FOR BESTIALITY, AFTER NOT RECOGNIZING, THAT FORCING AN ANIMAL TO ENGAGE, IN ANY KIND OF SEXUAL CONDUCT, IS A CRIME AGAINST THAT ANIMAL. WHO CANNOT GIVE ITS CONSENT AND ARE IN FACT ABUSED BY ITS OWNER, AND BY OTHERS PERPETRATING THOSE ACTS.


Former Supreme Court of Canada Judge, Thomas Cromwell,
now a lawyer again, with BLG, Bordon, Ladner and Gervais
law firm, made a legal blunder, in not recognizing the scope of
zoophillia, and specifically, bestiality, in a ruling last year, when he
ruled that oral sex with a dog (or any animal for that matter), was
not bestiality.
B.C. Supreme Court Judge, Arne Silverman, gave a
suspended sentence, to Brian Anthony Cutteridge,
  a notorious zoophilic monster, of having sex with his dogs.
The man had taken videos of himself, having sex with his dogs.
He got no jail time, from Judge Silverman.







  (Picture is Missing) Calgary, Ablerta,
Judge Gordon Wong, acquitted a man of the charge of bestiality. The man was accused of having sex, as well as forcing his stepson to have sex with animals. Including, a calf and a bull. The man had sex with the bull and then forced his stepson to have oral sex with a calf. The Canadian judge, acquitted the man at trial, to the outrage of the family and the public.




CROMWELL'S RULING THAT FORCING A DOG TO ENGAGE IN A SEXUAL ACT IN CANADA, IS NOT BESTIALITY, IF IT DOES NOT INCLUDE PENETRATION. AND YOU WONDER WHY HE "CHOSE" EARLY RETIREMENT FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA. CROMWELL IS NOW BACK TO BEING A REGULAR LAWYER, (SO THE EXCUSE OF AN EARLY RESIGNATION FROM THE SUPREME COURT WAS A FARCE. A LANGUAGE USED BY THOSE IN THE PUBLIC, WHEN THEY KNOW THAT THEIR DISMISSAL IS ALSO IMMINENT.
Perhaps he has performed bestiality on his own dog and so does not regard it as a crime and a cruel act against the poor and defenseless animal. This would also de sensitized him, further, on making any ruling on that subject, as he later did. 

Cromwell' infamous words in ruling on the case, "It is not court to expand the criminal liability for this (ancient) offence". His full statement in his ruling on bestiality, Cromwell said, "The term bestiality has a well established legal meaning and refers to sexual intercourse between a human and an animal". " Penetration has always been an essential element of bestiality", says the former Supreme Court of Canada judge. And with that decision the S.C.C. upheld the acquittal, of the man (who cannot be identified, in order to protect his stepdaughters) convicted and then acquitted, of the bestiality charge against his dogs.


CROMWELL WAS HARPER'S CHOICE, TO BE APPOINTED TO THE SURPREME COURT AND THE REST OF THE PROTOCOL FOLLOWED SMOOTHLY, AFTER THAT. AND JUST AS THE FORMER P.M. WAS INSTRUMENTAL IN HAVING CROMWELL APPOINTED BY THE GOVERNOR GENERAL, SO TOO THE NEW P.M. JUSTIN TRUDEAU WAS ALSO INSTRUMENTAL, IN BRINGING ABOUT HIS EARLY RETIRMENT AND OR RESIGNATION FROM THE SUPREME COURT. CROMWELL SERVED 8 YEAR ON THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA.

TRUDEAU'S COMMONS SENSE APPROACHED HAS CONTINUED, WHEN LAST AUGUST HE PROPOSED SOME NEW CHANGES TO CANADA'S HIGHEST COURT.  The new process will permit any lawyer or judge who fits a specified criteria to apply for a seat on the Supreme Court of Canada, through the Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs.

The more common sense approach by Supreme Court Judge Rosalie Abella ,showed a humane answer to the question of bestiality, as she took a different view from her peers. "“I do not see the absence of a requirement of penetration as broadening the scope of bestiality,” she wrote in her dissenting opinion. “I see it more as a reflection of Parliament’s common sense assumption that, since penetration is physically impossible with most animals and for half the population, requiring it as an element of the offence eliminates from censure most physically exploitative conduct with animals.”

Zoophilia is the more legal term and covers a much broader spectrum concerning humans engaging in sexual acts with animal and includes among those acts, bestiality. Unfortunately, in Canada oral sex with an animal in not considered as bestiality, or as a crime for that matter. Since the SCC made that absolutely clear in its ruling. Satanists and pedophiles are rampant in the courts, social agencies.  And they are also protected by their fraternity as freemasons, which most of them are. All that we can do is to exposed the ones that are caught making decisions that lead us to believe that they are not acting on behalf of the public in regards to their decisions, but "something else". Certainly human rights was far from this judge's mind as well as animal cruelty. He was as unapologetic about his decision, as were all of the other 7 Supreme Court judges who also agreed with him, over what is bestiality, and what is not.
With Justice Rosalie Abella, dissenting on the matter. I wonder if they also owned animal, or would like their animals to be abused in that way?


Former judge, Thomas Cromwell, now a
practicing lawyer. Most lawyers aspire to be
on the Supreme Court. He's had his tenure and now
he is back to being a lawyer, again. You'd think that
he would have been more wise in his decisions,
and to stick around longer. I can't help thinking that
some of his decisions, as a former Supreme Court
judge, also provided his hasty retreat, from Canada's
highest court.


























THE UNFORGIVABLE BLUNDER, OF THIS SUPREME COURT JUDGE, MAY HAVE LED TO HIS EARLY RESIGNATION, FROM CANADA'S HIGHEST COURT. TRUDEAU REPLACED HIM LAST YEAR AND NO DOUBT IT MAY HAVE HAD SOMETHING TO DO WITH SOME OF HIS EARLIER CONTROVERSIAL RULINGS. THE ONE THAT STANDS OUT THE MOST HERE, IS CROMWELL'S ACCENTING TO KEEPING THE BEASTIALITY LAWS, FROM INCLUDING ORAL SEX WITH AN ANIMAL, ALONG WITH PENETRATION.  CROMWELL RULED IN 2016, THAT A B.C. MAN DID NOT COMMIT BEASTIALITY UPON HIS DOG, BECAUSE THERE WAS NO PENETRATION AND ONLY ORAL SEX. HE ALSO FORCED THE DOG TO PERFORM A SEXUAL ACT UPON A SIXTEEN YEAR OLD AND THE SUPREME COURT JUDGE, also JUDGED WRONG AND DID NOT SEE IT AS AN ABOMINABLE ACT, PERFOMED ON THE ANIMAL.

NO WONDER THAT, THE FORMER SUPREME COURT JUDGE, IS BACK TO BEING A LAWYER AGAIN, AFTER HIS "EARLY RETIREMENT" I.E EXIT FROM THE SUPREME COURT, BY THE NEW P. M. JUSTIN TRUDEAU. (at least he can tell his new clients that he was a former judge on the supreme court of Canada, but he will also left out the part on some of his more controversial rulings, that got him to make an earlier exist, than the norm).



BLAME THIS SUPREME COURT JUDGE, JUSTICE THOMAS CROMWELL, FOR UPHELDING, THE CRUEL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS, IN THIS CASE FOR BESTIALITY.  AFTER NOT RECOGNIZING, THAT FORCING AN ANIMAL TO ENGAGE, IN ANY KIND OF SEXUAL CONDUCT, IS A CRIME AGAINST THAT ANIMAL. WHO CANNOT GIVE ITS CONSENT AND ARE IN FACT ABUSED BY ITS OWNER.

The Supreme Court of Canada Judges.
This should have been an outdated picture, but it is not.
What the f--k are they smiling about?

Take a look at this picture and tell me if there isn't something (fundamentally) wrong with it and also with the legal process in Canada?.
Don't you think that it is time the Supreme Court of Canada changed it's own image from that
of  being snow white and add some diversity to its judges, who are all white? Not one black, or any other minority are represented on Canada's highest court. And if you think that those white judges on the supreme court of Canada, are any different from those at the trial level, you are sadly mistaken. They ruled to uphold the status quo and that is why there are no real changes to any kind of equality, or to any real progress in this country.









Tuesday, June 13, 2017

THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT: THE OFFICE OF THE PROSECUTOR, HAS ACKNOWLEDGED, COMPLAINT FROM BLOGGER, TO INVESTIGATE CANADIAN AUTHORITIES, ACCUSED OF COMMITTING CRIMES, UNDER THE ROME STATUTE.

THE OFFICE OF THE PROSECUTOR, WITH THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT, HAS ACKNOWLEDGED, THE COMPLAINTS FROM BLOGGER, VALERIE GUILLAUME, INVOLVING, THOSE CANADIAN AUTHORITIES, WHO ARE NAMED AS ACCUSED PERSONS, BY THE BLOGGER, BEFORE THE I.C.C. 

Loretta Chandler
Municipal Level, Government
Official. And an accused, before
the International Criminal Court.

Sylvia Watson, a former
local politician, and an
Adjudicator, with the
L&T Board, is facing
criminal charges, in the
I.C.C
Matt Pegg, T.O Fire Chief,
is, also an accused, facing
criminal charges, in the
International Criminal Court

Toronto Deputy Fire Chief
Jim Jessop, is facing criminal
charges, in the International
Criminal Court,
Toronto Fire Captain, Rob Patten,
is facing criminal charges, in the
International Criminal Court
 

A partial list of some Canadian officials, who are currently facing criminal charges, in the International Criminal Court, under Article 7, of the Rome Statute.


AN UPDATE: CANADIAN AUTHORITIES, WHO ARE NOW FACING CHARGES, BEFORE THE I.C.C. SHOULD NOW HAVE MORE TO WORRY ABOUT, OVER THEIR ACTIONS, AS THE OFFICE OF THE PROSECUTOR, IS ALSO NOW INVOLVED, IN INVESTIGATING, THE CHARGES AGAINST THEM.


Blogger, Valerie Guillaume, has received an official acknowledgement, from the International Criminal Court, and from the Office of the Prosecutor, recently, involving her claim against several Canadian Authorities, for committing Crimes Against Humanity, against her. The Blogger's request, to the Office of the Prosecutor, to begin a proprio motu case, with the I.C.C, on behalf of the Blogger, citing a violation by the State, Canada, in committing human rights abuses against her, has now officially begun. The Office of the Prosecutor, now has the legal obligation to investigate the claims, against the State, Canada.


This Blogger, has also requested from the I.C.C. to participate in the proceedings against Canada. It is also a legal entitlement, of all victims appearing before the International Criminal Court. That request, of course, will be dealt with by the Judges' Chamber of the International Criminal Court, and it is also independent of the Office of the Prosecutor. As both organs of the court, has different functions and operates, independently from one another.


It is now in my best interest to gather, as much evidence against those government officials, who were all acting on behalf of the State and to present those evidence against them, in the International Criminal Court, as I want them to face the penalties, for their crimes against me.


My next move, is to petitioned the United nations, into taking actions on behalf of human rights and have Canada be mandated, to demonstrate more transparency, in its legal proceedings and to allow the televising of its legal proceedings, in order to protect those appearing before its courts.
I will argue, here, that there will be a significant reduction in human rights abuse, that are carried out by Canadian courts and by corrupt judges, justices of the peace and adjudicators, who act corruptly. And because those proceedings are not recorded and thus their actions are also hidden from the public. With cameras in the courtrooms, or hearing rooms, recording their actions, it is unlikely that the rate of human rights abuse, would go up, rather than to go down.

Tuesday, June 6, 2017

LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD'S CORRUPTION.


EGYA SANGMUAH, CAUGHT IN THE ACT, ACTING CORRUPT, AT HEARING.

THE HEARING, BEFORE THE LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD'S, VICE CHAIR, EGYA SANGMUAH, ON JUNE 5TH, HAS TURNED OUT TO BE, ONE OF THE MOST INCRIMINATING PIECE OF EVIDENCE, AGAINST HIS CORRUPTION, AT THE LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD.


Egya Sangmuah, conduct was anything but professional, with this tenant. He first did a number of things which also gave an indication, of how the review hearing, was going to end up with him, concerning the tenant, (and this Blogger). First, he did the usual thing that Canadian officials, in legal proceedings regarding this Blogger, are apt to do. Egya Sangmuah, first cleared the hearing room of all other persons, as to have no other witnesses to his corrupt actions later on. Or so he thought, since the tenant did get evidence of him acting corruptly. By leaving the tenant's review for the last, Sangmuah then felt assured, that he could introduced all manner of illegal practices, concerning the hearing. Including the following evidence against him:


1. Egya Sangmuah, brought previous files of the tenant's former landlords and former addresses, into the hearing room, (and holding those files up as he speak, at the hearing), telling the tenant that her review has been denied, because "She did the same thing (not attend a hearing), regarding her former landlords. Those previous files, of course, has no bearing on the tenant's present matter before the Board, in which she was asking for a review, of a hearing that was dismissed, by Sylvia Watson, on May 15th. The tenant had also informed the Board, before the hearing that she was unable to attend the hearing, due to medical reasons.(This was also the first review of the tenant, in 2017, before the Board and it was also denied by the Vice Chair, Egya Sangmuah).


2. Egya Sangmuah kept rolling his eyes and looking at the ceiling, each time that the tenant spoke, at the hearing. He also did other gesture, that was intended to insult the tenant. All of which will be brought to his Superior, Michael Gottheil, who is the Executive Chair, at the Social Justice Tribunal, which the Landlord and Tenant Board, is also a part of.


3. Sangmuah was in fact openly mocking the tenant and also the proceeding. He came predisposed to act bias against the tenant. The tenant also recorded the hearing, (being a participant of the hearing directly), by taking notes and audio recording his very words. This will be made available, in order to provide the proof, of this Member's actions, for several reasons. Including, in any other legal proceedings against him. (Which there is at this time). The other reason is for the tenant's own record, to show that there are crimes being committed against her at these legal proceedings, by Canadian government officials. Who all intended for their actions to remain secret. Without this proof, to substantiate her claims, against them, this Blogger, may not be believed. 













Friday, May 19, 2017

EGYA NDAYINANSE SANGMUAH, VICE CHAIR, AT THE LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD.

CORRUPTION AT THE LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD. THE VICE CHAIR, EGYA SANGMUAH, AND A NUMBER OF ADJUDICATORS, INCLUDING, SYLVIA WATSON, LOUISE HORTON AND RUTH CAREY, SHOULD ALL BE RELINQUISHED, FROM THEIR DUTIES. AS WELL AS TO FACE CHARGES, OVER THEIR PERSONAL CORRUPTION, IN THE ADJUDICATING, OF SOME CASES, BEFORE THE BOARD.



I INTEND TO CONTACT THE PREMIER OF ONTARIO, KATHLEEN WIN, OVER THE RE-APPOINTMENT, IN JANUARY OF 2017, OF THE VICE CHAIR OF THE LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD, EGYA SANGMUAH. IN MY OPINION, HIS PERSONAL CORRUPTION, AS THE VICE CHAIR, OF THE LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD, MAKES HIM UNFIT TO HOLD THAT POSITION. THERE IS NO TRANSPARENCY, AT THE BOARD. NOR IS THERE ANY TRANSPARENCY ABOUT HIS ACTIONS. HE COVERS UP FOR MEMBERS, LIKE SYLVIA WATSON, WHOSE ACTIONS ARE SO ADVERSE, TO THE AMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, AND FOR DISREGARDING THE LEGAL RIGHTS OF SOME TENANTS, BOTH UNDER THE RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES ACT, AS WELL AS UNDER THE CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOM. THE LATTER, IN REGARDS TO THE RIGHT TO HAVE A FAIR HEARING. AMONG OTHER PROTECTIONS, UNDER THE CANADIAN CONSTITUTION. A FAIR HEARING IS ALSO IMPOSSIBLE, WHEN THERE IS ALSO A PRESUMPTION OF BIAS, IN REGARDS TO TH OSE ADMINISTERING JUSTICE. LIKE THOSE ADJUDICATORS AT THE LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD.


BECAUSE SEVERAL MEMBERS OF THE LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD HAS ACTED EXTREMELY CORRUPTED, IN REGARDS TO MY MATTERS, BEFORE THE BOARD, THEY WILL ALSO HAVE TO FACE THE CONSEQUENSES, FOR THEIR ACTIONS. ONE OF THOSE CONSEQUENCES IS THAT THEY CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO DISREGARD THE LAW, AND ALSO THE TENANT'S RIGHTS, WHEN THEY ADJUDICATE THOSE MATTERS, BEFORE THE LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD. THE OTHER CONSEQUENCES, ARE THAT THOSE LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD MEMBERS, SHOULD ALSO FACE CRIMINAL CHARGES, FOR ACTING CORRUPTLY AND FOR INJURING THOSE APPEARING BEFORE THE BOARD, BY THEIR ACTIONS.


Here are some of their actions, which are blatantly a mockery of justice.


* Egya Sangmuach, Vice Chair, at the North Office of the Landlord and Tenant Board, has (in my case) taken more than the 24-48 hours that are usually required, to respond to my reviews. In the last instance, he and the Board, took three weeks to respond. That review, of Member Sylvia Watson's decision, to dismiss my application, because I could not attend a hearing on May 15th. The Vice Chair Egya Sangmuah, had the review request from me, as of May 17th, yet as the Vice Chair, his response was to bring the matter over to June 5th, so that I could have a review hearing, (and I am sure that they also plan to deny the review of that Member's decision, on May 15th), if I also do not do something drastic, about it.  That Member, Sylvia Watson, also denied my right as a tenant, to have summons issued, whereby witnesses (city officials) could be forced to give evidence at the hearing of the tenant's application. (And why the Landlord and Tenant Board, saw it fit, only in my case and not other cases involving those city officials, to allow my tenancy to end, because those city officials wanted it to be so).


* Egya Sangmuah, as the Vice Chair, of the Landlord and Tenant Board, also saw nothing wrong
with a Member, like Sylvia Watson, denying a tenant the right to have witnesses, at a hearing. Yet granting this same privilege to the landlord.  Adjudicator Sylvia Watson, also did not sign the order she made, about that decision. That document was also missing from the tenant's file, along with other documents. The tenant feared that the Vice Chair and those Members, also believed that the documents would be made public, or be a part of other legal proceedings against them. In which they are also right, in that assumption. I wonder what the Vice Chair, Egya Sangmuah, has done with all of my documents, that has gone missing from my file, at the Landlord and Tenant Board, over the last few weeks. Yesterday, a clerk at the Board, had the time of her life, running around and trying to find them. She wasn't pleased, either, that I had insisted on obtaining those documents, from my file and also insisting that they should also be in my file. Her explanation, is that those documents, "could be sitting on anyone's desk". I wonder why that is the case?. When they should also be kept in the file, where they also belong.


* Denying me the right to a fair hearing. Including, making decisions without giving any reasons, for those decisions. And also not signing their signatures to the documents. As Adjudicator Sylvia Watson, is also apt do to, in my matters.


* Logging documents received by the Board, much later in their system than when they had received it, and then later ruling against it, by pretending those documents did not exist at the time. Again, this was done by Sylvia Watson.


BEING A WRITER, REQUIRES A BALANCING ACT. I CAN DISLIKE SOMEONE, PERSONALLY, BUT STILL BE ABLE TO PRESENT THE FACTS, ABOUT THEM. SUCH IS THE CASE WITH EGYA SANGMUAH. I CAN BE THOROUGHLY OBJECTIVE, IN PRESENTING MY CASE, ABOUT HIM. AND/OR AGAINT HIM. I AM A BLOGGER, TOO AND THAT MEANS THAT I ALSO GIVE MY PERSONAL OPINION, ABOUT ANYTHING, OR ABOUT ANYONE. A BLOG, IS NOT YOUR STANDARD FORM OF JOURNALISM, OR REPORTING. AS LONG AS MY STATEMENTS ARE ACCURATE, THEN I DON'T WORRY ABOUT THE FORMAT USED, TO CONVEY THIS INFORMATION, TO THE PUBLIC. SO JUST BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THIS GUY AND ALL THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE VERY CORRUPT LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD, DOES NOT MEAN THAT I ALSO CANNOT BE OBJECTIVE, IN MY REPORTING, ON THEIR ACTIONS. I CAN DO BOTH.





Egya Sangmuah, Vice-Chair, of the Landlord
and Tenant Board. And former member of
the Immigration and Refugee Board. Who
has also shown no real human emotions, nor
any respect for human dignity, in dealing
with those cases, that come before him
and requiring such a response. As for the
law, he is clueless. (Though he holds
a Master's degree in Law). How come he
could not deduce this simple fact? That his
actions, could also lead to criminal charges
against him?. Or that someone, without a
law degree, could also challenge him, legally,
in a court of law?. And that is why he
is also be facing charges, for Committing
Crimes Against Humanity, in the
International Criminal Court. Where he has
also, conspired, to harm this Blogger. The
allegations against him, by this Blogger, is
also grounds for criminal charges against him
in the International Criminal Court, that
also exist, to protect human dignity and to
uphold justice, for crimes committed by the State.
Or by persons, acting, on behalf of the State,
including, those like Egya Sangmuah, 
 Which in this case, is Canada.



I, PERSONALLY, DISLIKE THIS MAN, EGYA SANGMUAH.  HE IS THE KIND OF NIGGER, WHO WILL DO ACCORDING TO WHAT HE IS TOLD. ( I DO NOT CARE ABOUT THE NUMBER OF DEGREES, THAT HE ALSO POSSESSED. THE MAN IS DISPICTABLE AND LACKS A CONSICENCE. HE IS ONE OF THOSE BLACKS WHOSE PERSONAL AMBITION, SUPERCEDES, HIS PROFESSIONAL JUDGEMENT. MEANING, THAT IF HE FINDS THAT HE IS TO ACT, OR MAKE A RULING, BASED ON "SOME OTHER CRITERIA", HE WILL ALSO DO IT. DESPITE THE DEVASTATING EFFECT, THAT MAY ALSO HAVE ON THE CASE. (AND WHETHER THOSE CASES, ARE BASED ONT THE LAW, OR JUST SOUND JUDGMENT). HE HAS NO BUSINESS IN DEALING WITH CASES, THAT ALSO INVOLVE SOCIAL JUSTICE, OR THOSE INVOLVING, HUMANITARIAN GROUNDS.

SUCH AS THOSE REFUGEE CASES WITH THE IMMIGRATION BOARD, BECAUSE HE ALSO LACKS PERSONAL EMPATHY. NOR DOES HE MAKE HIS RULINGS, BASED ON THE LAW, EITHER. I FOUND HIS DECISIONS, AS A MEMBER OF THE IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE BOARD, OVER THOSE PALESTINIANS, SEEKING ASYLUM IN CANADA, REPREHENSIBLE. THOUGH THE STATELESS AND PERSECUTED, THOSE PALESTINIANS, HAD ALSO TAKEN REFUGE IN A CANADIAN CHURCH BASEMENT, EGYA SANGMUAH, AS A MEMBER OF THE BOARD, STILL FOUND TIME TO FIND THOSE PALESTINIANS, INADMISSIBLE, TO LIVE IN CANADA, BASED ON MEDICAL GROUNDS!
(See the link below, to the article on Egya Sangmuah's decision, by the Globe and Mail https://sec.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/stateless-family-can.../article4167147/). And then also tell me, if this man would do a better job, at the Landlord and Tenant Board?. Which like all legal proceedings, require a delicate balance of administering the law, hopefully, with someone who is also morally upstanding. But at the very minimum, to conduct a fair hearing.  Egya Sangmuah was perfectly at ease, in finding those five disabled Palestinian refugee seekers in Canada, all inadmissible, based on their disability. He ruled that they would be a burden on the Canadian medical system.  I can also tell you that other disabled persons, has also been granted refugee status in Canada, BECAUSE OF THEIR DISABILITY. But not with EGYA SANGMUACH, WHO IS A MEMBER OF THE CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE BOARD. AS WELL AS BEING, THE VICE CHAIR, OF THE LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD. ( The Palestinian family, was later allowed to stay in Canada, based on Humanitarian and Compassionate grounds. I for one, also believed, that they went through all of this rejection, from the Canadian government, with their initial applications for refugee status, because they were Palestinians).You see, these very ambitious individuals, like Egya Sangmuah, and others who apply to the Office of the Secretariat, which falls under the Premier's office, for those public positions, also seek to advance their own career. And because Canada is also a corrupt government, they also fit right in. In fact, the more corrupt and wicked and evil they are, the better are their chances of getting those appointments. from the government.


EGYA SANGMUAH, IS YET ANOTHER NAME OF AN ACCUSED PERSON, BEFORE THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT.  AND IN REGARDS TO MY MATTER.BEFORE THAT COURT, INVOLVING, HIS PERSONAL CORRUPTION, IN CARRYING OUT THE ABUSE OF MY HUMAN RIGHTS. WHICH HAS ALSO INVOLVED, THE LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD, AND HIS ACTIONS DIRECTLY. ALONG WITH ANOTHER BOARD MEMBER, SYLVIA WATSON, HAS NOW LANDED HIM AS AN ACCUSED PERSON, BEFORE THE ICC. ACCUSED, OF COMMITTING ACTS OF CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY, IN REGARDS TO ME. HE ALONG WITH SEVERAL OTHER CANADIAN GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS, AND THOSE IN THE COURT AND OR TRIBUNAL/BOARDS, WHO ARE FACING CRIMINAL CHARGES IN THAT COURT FOR THEIR DIRECT ACTIONS, IN CARRYING OUT TORTURE AGAINST ME.









(I intend to rewrite this column and include the pictures of those persons here).
There are some things, that I did not know about the Vice Chair, until today. For one thing, that he was Black, and originally an African national. (Grounds which should also make him more lenient towards other immigrants, or those of his own race. Or of any other marginalized groups, for that matter, living in Canada. For instance, one would not be able to tell this from his actions, as part of the Immigration and Refugee Board, concerning his decisions concerning those people, that he also has so much in common with, individually. He seemed to have acquired the White Canadian's racist views, on some people. An unforgivable sin (or blunder), on his part. That means, of a necessity, also imposing those views, via his decisions, on those same people. Even though he has more in common with them, than with those White racist Canadians, whose views he actually, represents and upholds, as best as he can, as a member of those various Boards, that he sits on. Including, his current position, as the Vice Chair, of the Landlord and Tenant Board. Well, guess what?.


Some of us are not impressed, with your many degrees. What we see based on your actions, is someone acting capriciously, taking advantage of his position and using it to cause harm to others. I would also not have known that Egya Sangmuah had any legal background, based on the kind of stuff, that he allows to happen, at the Landlord and Tenant Board. Take the very basis legal premise, of a fair hearing. I am not the only tenant at the Landlord and Tenant Board, that will tell you, that this also does not exist, by the Members and also under the guidance of the Vice Chair, Egya Sangmuah. The reason being that most tenants will also settle for their rights being abused, by Board members. They will not take the matter, any further, than the Landlord and Tenant Board. Which makes it all the more easier for Members to act corrupt and to disregard their rights. My accusations against the Vice Chair, Egya Sangmuah and against those members, like Sylvia Watson, Louise Horton and others at the Landlord and Tenant Board, is that they all conspired to harm me, by dealing corruptly with my matter that is before the Board. That is also grounds for further legal actions against all of them. Including, laying criminal charges against them. In doing so they have also violated my rights under international laws, particularly, those that are designed to protect my dignity, as a human being. Their actions against me, were all calculated to cause me maximum injury.


What they wanted to do was to break my spirit and to destroy me. And that is also why in their decisions involving my case, they also veered so much from the law. Especially, in the case of Adjudicator Sylvia Watson, who as a former lawyer and politician, should be well familiar with the protection offered to the public, via the Constitution and who has also deliberately ignored this fact, and acted corrupt. As a former lawyer, and now Adjudicator with the Landlord and Tenant Board, Sylvia Watson, also knew that I had a right to have witnesses at my hearing, whose testimony were also necessary to established certain facts. She has denied me the three summons that I had requested, requiring those three government officials to attend the hearing. She also believed that one of those witnesses evidence would be sufficient (as she and the Board, has allowed the landlord to have one of those same government officials, summoned, by the Landlord and Tenant Board and to give evidence, on his behalf. What was the evidence to which the Board also granted him the summons?. That the government official (from the fire department),provide the proof that he could no longer rent out the unit. All the landlord had to do, was to bring those same written notices to the Board, instead of requiring a summons for the government official to attend the hearing. He got the summons in less than 48 hours from the Board and the government official, ( T.O. fire inspector, Mark Spedaliere) also showed up at the hearing, because he wanted to assist the landlord, (who had broken the law by the way, and hence the notices against him, by the fire department), to have the upper hand at the hearing, and for the tenant, me, not to be allowed to get back into my home.


The tenant, me, actually had two means of egress. A door and a window, although the dutiful fire inspector, only focused on one exist, during his testimony. The secondary exit (window), also leads directly to the backyard and directly from the tenant's bedroom, should there be a fire.  In fact, the tenant's window is so large, it also covers one third of the room. It could easily provide a means of exist and escape, should there be a fire.  This evidence was also hidden by the T.O. fire officials, in their reports. The law only requires one exist and the tenant had two such exists. The egress from the tenant's window, was also excluded from the testimony of the corrupt fire official, because he wanted THAT tenant, meaning me, not to be able to remain in her home.  At the same time this corrupt T.O. fire officials also allowed the landlord to continue to overcrowd the rental house, allowing him to still have double the occupancy load, than what the Ontario Fire Code allows. Once he was given the two notices by the T.O Fire Services over the overcrowding and lack of working fire systems, the owner, had also decided that it was not profitable to keep the rental property.


He told the tenants that he planned to sell the house in April. That did not happen, because since he was also never charged over his actions and more corruptly, since he was also allowed to keep his other tenants, despite the overcrowding and the continued breaking of the fire code, not to mention knowingly putting the lives of the tenant in danger, he no longer wanted to sell the rental property. We are now into May and the landlord has also continued, just has he had done before. With maintaining a building that was unsafe for all of the tenants, not just the one tenant that they wanted to get out of the building, for complaining about the landlord's illegal actions. And for which the tenant was rewarded by being evicted, illegally. Both by the Fire Services and by the Board, via the Vice Chair, Egya Sangmuah, who has stated that "even if the Board could reinstate the tenant, it would not, because the fire services deem it unsafe". As far as the law is concerned, the Board has also overturned other cases, where the Fire Services, had taken it upon itself, to evict a tenant, without the Board having a saying in the mater. In those precedents set by the Landlord and Tenant Board, the Board has unequivocally stated, that it is only the Landlord and Tenant Board, which has the right to evict those tenants. And not the Toronto Fire Services. The tenants were also reinstated in their homes and the landlords were also fined heavily by the Board, for those violations. None of that has happened in my case, due to the corruption involved. The question then is, why are those Canadian government officials, including those at the Board, surprised that I am taking this action further?. That they can't just act corrupt and not answer for their actions. Since they had all conspired to destroy me, in that way. AND had also hope to get away scotch free, with their actions. Actually, they had hoped that their deeds would never see the light of day, much less for them to answer in a court of law and facing charges over their actions.