THE CASE MANAGEMENT JUDGE, DAVID CORBETT, OF THE DIVISIONAL COURT, IN TORONTO, HAS REFUSED TO RECUSED HIMSELF, FROM HEARING MY SECOND URGENT MOTION, AFTER HE HAD MOOTED THE FIRST MOTION AND APPEAL THAT GOES WITH THAT MOTION, FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF. AND WITHOUT CONDUCTING, A HEARING, FOR BOTH.
THE CASE MANAGEMENT JUDGE, OF THE DIVISIONAL COURT IN TORONTO, JUDGE DAVID CORBETT, WAS SERVED WITH MY MOTION, TO RECUSE HIMSELF, FROM HEARING MY URGENT MOTION, FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF, ON DECEMBER 20, 2021. THE MOTION WAS MADE, AFTER THE JUDGE HAS CONTINUED TO ACT IN A MANNER, THAT SHOWS THAT THERE WAS EVIDENCE OF BIAS, OR THE APPREHENSION OF BIAS, ON HIS PART, AND THAT THIS DOES NOT GO WITH THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, THAT WOULD ALLOW ME TO HAVE A FAIR HEARING, SHOULD HE MAKE HIMSELF THE TRIAL JUDGE AND HEAR MY URGENT MOTION.
THE JUDGE RESPONDED, TO THE MOTION TO RECUSE HIMSELF, BY SETTING A DATE FOR JANUARY 7TH, WHERE THE PARTIES WILL RESPOND TO IT AND THEN A DATE IN THE FUTURE, TO HEAR THE MOTION. AND ALL OF THIS WAS TOTALLY UNNECESSARY. ALL HE HAD TO DO WAS TO REMOVED HIMSELF, FROM BEING THE TRIAL JUDGE, AFTER HE HAS BEEN THE CASE CONFERENCE JUDGE, FOR SEVERAL MONTHS, CONCERNING MY APPEALS AND URGENT MOTIONS, BEFORE THE DIVISIONAL COURT, FROM THE LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD. AND AS THE CASE CONFERENCE JUDGE, HE WAS ALSO PRIVY TO INFORMATION, ABOUT THE CASE, BEFORE IT WAS HEARD AT A HEARING, OR TRIAL.
* Previously, at the Case Conference on November 17, 2021, the said judge, Corbett, had made the statement, that another judge, or himself, will hear the motion. He already knew, that by case managing the appeal, that he was also not qualified, to be the trial judge, at the hearing on December 20th.
* A further bias on the part of Judge D. Corbett, was to give the landlord's lawyer, and the L&T Board, two weeks to respond to my urgent motion, that was filed with the court on December 1st. While he gave me until December 7th, to file any other materials. In fact, the hearing is scheduled for December 20th and I have been given by the same judge, less than two days to respond, to the defendant's responding motion, to my urgent motion. Since I was served with their responding motion on December 16th and the hearing is on Monday, December 20th, I hardly have two full days, to respond to their motions. And there are two other parties, to this appeal. So, Judge Corbett, has given me two days to provide my written response, regarding the two other parties to this appeal. They got fifteen days, or two weeks and I got only two days, to respond, from the same judge.
* Judge Corbett, has never had a hearing of my earlier urgent motion, or appeal, before mooting and dismissing them. Try appealing a case that has never been heard and see if that is possible.
* By mooting that appeal, he also done away with the protection in the order, from the L&T Board, that was being appeal/reviewed. As I had only disagreed with part of the order, but wanted the other protections in the same order to continue. No thanks to Judge Corbett, that order now has been dismissed and without a hearing at the Divisional court.
* He continues to give his decisions, via email and through the court staff. Instead of making an order, or an endorsement, of his decisions.
* Making impossible demands, such as wanting me to argue against some "undisputed facts", in the decision of the Board, that were in fact disputed, by the evidence that I have presented. E.g. That the keys were returned by the former tenant on July 28th, when the audio evidence said otherwise.
THAT ORDER THAT WAS STAYED, (FROM THE LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD, DATED SEPTEMBER 22, 2021), ALSO PROTECTED MY TENANCY AND MY PROPERTY, FROM THE LANDLORD'S ACTIONS.
ALTHOUGH MAKING THE ORDER, TO STAY THE APPEAL AND THE URGENT MOTION, THE JUDGE WENT BACK ON HIS OWN WORDS AND MOOTED THE APPEAL AND THE URGENT MOTION. THE JUDGE ALSO DID NOT SIGN HIS OWN ORDER. THIS POSED A PROBLEM LATER ON, WHEN I WANTED TO APPEAL HIS DECISION, TO MOOT BOTH THE URGENT MOTION AND THE APPEAL.