CORRUPT BOARD MEMBER, AND VICE- CHAIR, IAN SPEERS, AT THE SOUTH WEST LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD OFFICE, MADE ORDER PRESERVING THE TENANCY OF TENANT, WHO WAS ILLEGALLY LOCKED OUT, BUT WOULD NOT REINSTATE THE TENANT, AS THE INTERIM ORDER ASKED, PENDING THE TENANT'S T2 APPLICATION, TO BE HEARD.

THE CONSPIRACY AND CORRUPTION, DIRECTED AGAINST ME, AT THE LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD. 

VICE-CHAIR, IAN SPEERS, AT THE LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD, DECISION, TO LET A TENANT (ME), REMAINED LOCKED OUT OF HER RENTAL UNIT, AND DENYING HER THE RIGHT TO REMAINED IN HER HOME, PENDING THE OUTCOME OF HER T2 APPLICATION. 

ACCORDING TO THE VICE-CHAIR'S ORDER, ISSUED ON SEPTEMBER 22ND, THE INTERIM ORDER, "PRESERVED" THE TENANCY, WHILE AT THE SAME TIME, DENIED THE TENANT, ACCESS TO HER HOME, UNTIL HER APPLICATION CAN BE HEARD. 

- THE HARM DONE TO THE TENANT, BY THE ILLEGAL LOCK OUT, WAS NEVER A PART OF HIS CONSIDERATION, WHEN MAKING THE ORDER.  OR WHEN APPLYING THE RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES ACT.

- IAN SPEERS, DECIDED IN THE INTERIM ORDER, THAT HE WOULD NOT REINSTATE THE TENANT (ME), BACK INTO HER HOME, ON AN EX-PARTE BASIS, EVEN THOUGH THE LANDLORD COUNSEL, DAVID RUBIN, WAS SERVED WITH A COPY OF THE URGENT MOTION, BY THE TENANT'S  LEGAL AID LAWYER, KYLE WARWICK.  DAVID RUBIN CHOSE NOT TO RESPOND TO THE MOTION. 

REGARDING, L&T BOARD VICE-CHAIR, IAN SPEERS, THIS SHOULD BE SAID, THAT, NO COMPETENT PERSON, WITH AN OUNCE OF DECENCY AND MORAL STANDING, AND DUTY TO THE PUBLIC, WOULD IN ACT IN SUCH A MANNER, AS TO MAKE AN ORDER, MAINTAINING A TENANT'S TENANCY, WHILE AT THE SAME TIME, PREVENTING HER FROM BEING IN HER HOME, UNTIL THE BOARD'S HEARING, ON THE ISSUES.  THE VICE-CHAIR, IAN SPEERS ACTIONS, WAS INTENDED, TO CAUSE FURTHER HARM TO THE TENANT, WHILE SHE WAITS FOR HER APPLICATION TO BE HEARD.  HIS ORDER WAS MADE, FOR THAT PURPOSE. THE OTHER PURPOSE OF HIS ORDER, AS IS CLEARLY SHOWN IN THE ORDER, IS TO AGREE TO THE ILLEGAL EVICTION, BY THE LANDLORD. IT IS PART OF THE CONSPIRACY INVOLVED.

THE CONSPIRACY AND THE CORRUPTION, INVOLVED, LEADING UP TO THE DECISION, OF THE VICE-CHAIR, IAN SPEERS.  THE UNSETTLING DETAILS, OF HOW MY MATTER, WAS DELIBERATELY, SET APART AT THE BOARD, FOR UNUSUAL TREATMENT, THAT WAS INTENDED TO HARM ME, AS A TENANT. 

LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF, WHO LIED AND WHO HAVE ACTED, TO INTERFERE WITH THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, INCLUDED, HARIANYA, A CUSTOMER SERVICE REPRESENTATIVE, AT THE BOARD. THIS WOMAN'S ACTIONS, IN LYING ABOUT WHO FORWARDING THE URGENT MOTION, TO A DIFFERENT MEMBER, OTHER THAN THE VICE CHAIR, WAS BY HER ACTIONS, ATTEMPTING TO INTERFERE WITH THE ADMINISTRATION, OF JUSTICE IN MY CASE.

* ON SEPTEMBER 14TH, AN URGENT MOTION WAS FILED WITH THE L&T BOARD, SEEKING   AN INTERIM ORDER, TO RE-INSTATE ME INTO MY HOME, UNTIL I GOT A HEARING DATE,   REGARDING MY T2 APPLICATION. (URGENT MOTION, PROVIDED BELOW).

* TENANT'S URGENT MOTION, WAS NEVER VIEWED, BY A REGULAR BOARD MEMBER, AND WAS KEPT FROM BEING VIEWED, BY A BOARD MEMBER, FOR A WEEK.  

* ON SEPTEMBER 21 ST, THE TENANT LEARNED, THAT HER URGENT MOTION, THAT WAS FILED WITH THE BOARD, WAS STILL SITTING AROUND AND THAT NO BOARD MEMBER, HAD REVIEWED IT, LET ALONE MAKING A DECISION ON IT. 

* ON SEPTEMBER 21 ST, THE TENANT WAS ADVISED, BY A CUSTOMER SERVICE OFFICER, HARIANYA, THAT SHE WAS GOING TO PUT, "BOTH THE TENANT'S T2 APPLICATION AND THE URGENT MOTION", BEFORE THE VICE-CHAIR, FOR A DECISION TO BE MADE, ON BOTH MATTERS, IMMEDIATELY.  BECAUSE, SHE ALSO CLAIMED, THE TENANT'S (ME), T2 APPLICATION, WAS NOW PROCESSED AND THE VICE-CHAIR, WAS GOING TO REVIEW BOTH. NATURALLY, I PROTESTED AND ASKED HER NOT TO DO SO, SINCE THIS WOULD BE PREJUDICE TO ME, HAVING BOTH THE T2 AND THE URGENT MOTION HEARD TOGETHER, BY THE SAME PERSON. HARIANYA, THEN TOLD ME, THAT SHE WAS NOT GOING TO GO AHEAD AND DO SO, SINCE I DID NOT WANT THAT DONE,  IN THIS MANNER.  BUT SHE DID, GO AHEAD AND HAD THE VICE-CHAIR, IAN SPEERS, REVIEWED MY URGENT MOTION AND I ALSO BELIEVED NOW, THE T2 APPLICATION AS WELL. THOUGH THAT IS NOT STATED IN THE ORDER.  HARIANYA, IN FACT, CALLED ME DIRECTLY, FROM HER PHONE, AT THIS TEL. NUMBER, 416 314-0354, AFTRER SPEAKING TO CORINA, ANOTHER CUSTOMER SERVICE OFFICER. THIS ONE LOCATED AT THE 47 SHEPPARD AVENUE EAST, OFFICE, ACCORDING TO KYLE WARWICK, THE LAWYER, WHO REPRESENTED, ME AT THE BOARD. KYLE WARWICK, LAWYER, HAD SAID THAT HE WOULD BE AWAY,  AND WOULD NOT RETURN UNTIL, TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 21ST. 

* THE REASON THAT THE BOARD ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF, WANTED THE T2 AND THE URGENT MOTION, TO BE HEARD TOGETHER, AFTER SUPPRESSING THE URGENT MOTION, FROM GOING BEFORE A MEMBER, FOR A WEEK, TO BE REVIEWED, I BELIEVED, WAS TO PREVENT THE URGENT MOTION, TO REINSTATE THE TENANT (ME), FROM HAPPENING.  FIRST, NO BOARD MEMBER, GOT TO SEE THE URGENT MOTION, FOR AN ENTIRE WEEK, AFTER IT WAS FILED WITH THE BOARD, AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN, THE URGENCY, BY THE BOARD,  IN HAVING BOTH MATTERS, HEARD TOGETHER AND BY THE VICE-CHAIR, SPECIFICALLY.  AFTER SPEAKING WITH HARIANYA AND VOICING MY CONCERNS, THAT THE URGENT MOTION, AS WELL AS THE T2 (MOTION TO SHORTEN THE TIME FOR A HEARING), BE HEARD, BY A DIFFERENT BOARD MEMBER AND NOT THE VICE-CHAIR, IT WAS STILL DONE ANYWAY.  SHE IN FACT TOLD ME, THAT SHE WAS GOING TO PRESENT THE URGENT MOTION, TO THE TEAM THAT DEALS WITH URGENT MOTIONS AND FOR IT TO GO TO A REGULAR BOARD MEMBER, BUT I LATER LEARNED, THAT THIS WAS NOT DONE.  

* THE CONSPIRACY AND THE CORRUPTION, INVOLVED, BY THE BOARD AND OTHERS INVOLVED, INCLUDING, I ALSO BELIEVED, THE LANDLORD'S AGENTS AND COUNSEL, DAVID RUBIN, AS WELL AS OTHERS, WAS TO NOT HAVE THE INTERIM ORDER, SEEKING THE REINSTATEMENT, OF THE TENANT (ME), GRANTED AND THAT IS WHY THE URGENT MOTION ,WAS SITTING AROUND AT THE LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD, FOR A WEEK, WITHOUT BEING VIEWED BY ANY MEMBER, UP UNTIL THE TIME, THAT THE VICE-CHAIR IAN SPEERS, MADE HIS DECISION, IN THE ORDER, NOT TO RE-INSTATE THE TENANT, BACK INTO THE RENTAL UNIT, WHILE AT THE SAME TIME, MAINTAINING HER TENANCY.  

* AND FOR THE RECORD, THERE IS NO BARBARA O'CCONOR, WHO IS A TENANT, ON MY T2 APPLICATION.  SHE WAS THE FORMER TENANT AND LEASE HOLDER, WHO HAD MOVED OUT OF THE APARTMENT, AT THE END OF JUNE 2021, WHEN I HAD TAKEN OVER THE LEASE.  AS FAR AS THE ACT IS CONCERNED, SHE IS HISTORY. AS FAR AS MY T2 APPLICATION IS CONCERNED, SHE IS A WITNESS AND NOT A TENANT. THAT WILL BE HER ROLE AT THE UPCOMING HEARING. (UPON MY REQUEST).  

* THE CRIME INVOLVED HERE, IS GROSS HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS. AND THE REMEDY FOR THAT, IS A CASE AGAINST THE INDIVIDUALS RESPONSIBLE, WHO ACTED IN THEIR PUBLIC DUTY, OR CAPACITY, TO USE THEIR POSITIONS, TO CAUSE INJURY TO THE VICTIM.  THE SOLUTION IN MY VIEW, IS A CASE WITH THE UNITED NATIONS, INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE, CITING A VIOLATION BY CANADA AND ITS PUBLIC AND GOVERNMENT  OFFICIALS, UNDER THE CONVENTION OF TORTURE, AND IN FACT OTHER TREATIES, TO VIOLATE MY HUMAN RIGHTS AND MORE SINISTER, TO CARRY OUT CRUEL AND UNUSUAL  PUNISHMENT AND DEGRADING TREATMENT, AGAINST ME. 

* THAT IS WHERE THEY ARE ALL HEADING, AS DEFENDANTS, WITH REGARDS TO MY CHARGES AGAINST THOSE INDIVIDUALS, IN THE INTERNATIONAL COURTS OF JUSTICE.

BELOW, IS THE URGENT MOTION THAT WAS FILED, WITH THE LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD, AND ASKING FOR AN ITERIM ORDER, REINSTATING THE TENANT (ME), UNTIL THE TENANT'S T2 APPLICATION, IS HEARD. 

LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD, VICE-CHAIR, IAN SPEER'S INTERIM ORDER, DATED SEPTEMBER 22ND, PREVENTING TENANT (ME), FROM BEING REINSTATED INTO HER HOME, WHILE AT THE SAME TIME, MAINTAINING HER TENANCY.  AND KNOWING FULL WELL, THAT IN DOING SO, THAT THE TENANT (ME), WOULD BE FURTHER HARMED, (WHICH WAS HIS INTENTION), WHILE WAITING FOR HER T2 APPLICATION, TO BE HEARD.  WHOSE PURPOSE IS HE SERVING?. THE TENANT'S OR THE LANDLORD?. 

WHY IN HIS DECISION, DOES HE WANT TO HARM THE TENANT FURTHER, BY CAUSING HER NOT TO BE IN HER HOME, WHILE MAKING AN ORDER, WHICH CONTINUES TO MAINTAIN HER TENANCY?. 

AS FOR HIS REASONING, THAT THE URGENT MOTION, WAS AN EX-PARTE MOTION AND THE OTHER SIDE, SHOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY, TO ARGUE THEIR SIDE OF THE CASE. WHAT WILL THEY BE ARGUING?.  THAT THEY HAD A RIGHT, TO GO AGAINST THE RTA AND TO ILLEGALLY EVICT THE TENANT, WITHOUT AN ORDER FROM THE BOARD?.  CLEARLY BY HIS DECISION, AND IN HIS CORRUPT VIEW, THE VICE CHAIR, IAN SPEERS, AGREES WITH THE ACTIONS OF THE LANDLORD. 

THAT ALONE, SHOULD HAVE HIM REMOVED, FROM BEING A VICE-CHAIR, AND FROM MAKING ANY DECISIONS, IN REGARDS TO TENANTS, AT THE BOARD.