THE YORK REGIONAL POLICE, HAS DECIDED TO CARRY OUT ITS HARASSMENT, BY ITS ILLEGAL SURVEILLANCE OF ME, WITHOUT A WARRANT.
AS SOON AS I BEGAN TO RECORD THEIR ACTIVITY, THEY DROVE OFF. NOW, I HAVE A LANDLORD, WHO THEY SEEM TO BE WORKING WITH THE POLICE, AND WHO WHO WANTS TO EVICT ME, ILLEGALLY. AND AS WE CAN SEE FROM THE CASE OF CARR VS THE OTTAWA POLICE, AS WELL AS THE LAW ITSELF, THE POLICE IS NOT SUPPOSE TO BE ASSISTING A LANDLORD, TO EVICT ANY RENT PAYING TENANT. THE JUDGE, SYLVIA CORTHORN, RULED THAT THE VICTIM, "HAD EVERY RIGHT TO BE AT THE HOME, AS A RENT PAYOR".
MY MATTER IS IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE, WHICH DEALS WITH ALL OTHER TENANCIES, THAT ARE NOT COVERED UNDER THE RTA, AND INSTEAD OF GOING TO THE COURT, TO OBTAIN A WRIT OF POSSESSION, THIS WOMAN IS TRYING TO FIND OTHER WAYS TO EVICT ME. SHE HAS ONLY TURNED THE HEAT ON, SINCE NOVEMBER 1ST AND SHE HAS TURNED THE WATER OFF, FOR MONTHS NOW, IN THE KITCHEN AND AND HAS ALSO TURNED THE WATER OFF IN THE BATHRROM. WHICH MEANS THAT YOU CANNOT USE THE TOILET.
TWO WEEKS AGO, SHE CONTACTED THE POLICE AND TOLD THEM THAT I HAD STUFFED A PLASTIC BAG DOWN THE TOILET AND HAD BLOCKED UP HER TOILET. BUT HERE IS WHAT SHE ALSO SAID TO THE POLICE, "THAT SHE WAS NOT AT HOME AT THE TIME, BUT IT MUST BE ME, BECAUSE I WAS HOME ALL DAY". NOW SHE IS SAYING THAT SOMEONE SAW ME FLUSHED THE PLASTIC BAG, DOWN THE TOILET, WHICH IS HEARSAY. AND WHO THE HELL, AS A STRANGER, WOULD BE INVITED INSIDE A BATHROOM, WHEN YOU ARE USING IT?. BOTH LIES ON HER PART. SHE ALSO CHANGED THE LOCK ON THE DOOR AND DID NOT GIVE ME THE REPLACEMENT KEYS, WHERE I HAD TO BE CALLING THE POLICE TO ASSIST ME, IN GETTING BACK INSIDE MY HOME.
THE LANDLORDS, PUI YI WONG AKA FANNY WONG AND SUET WAN WONG, AKA KEN WONG, HAS BEEN OPERATING THEIR PROPERTY ILLEGALLY FOR 13 YEARS. AND THEY DID WHATEVER THEY WANTED TO THE TENANTS. LAST WEEK, WHEN THE GARBAGE TRUCK DID NOT TAKE UP THE GARBAGE, SHE THREATENED TO DUMP IT IN MY RENTAL UNIT. SHE IS ALSO FACING A CIVIL ACTION BY ME, FOR DAMAGES. ALONG WITH SOME CORRUPT CITY OF MARKHAM, OFFICIALS. ONCE OF WHOM, A FIRE INSPECTOR, BY THE NAME OF ALEX FREEMAN, RECENTLY MAKE AN INSPECTION OF THE PROPERTY (AGAIN) AND ORDERE HER TO REMOVED THE BEDS FROM ALL OF THE ROOMS, THAT SHE HAD TOLD THE BY-LAW OFFICERS, WERE EMPTY AND THAT THE TENANTS HAD MOVED OUT. THE INSPECTORS WANTED PROOF OF THIS AND ORDERED HER TO REMOVED THE LOCKS ON THE DOORS FROM THOSE ROOMS, (TWO ON THE SECOND FLOOR AND ONE ON THE MAIN FLOOR), AS WELL AS THE BEDS, IN THOSE ROOMS. BUT SHE HAS CONTINUED TO IGNORE THE ORDER AND HAS FAILED TO COMPLY WITH IT. ONE OF THE TENANTS, A MALE, WHOSE ROOM WAS ORDERED TO BE CLOSED DOWN PERMANENTLY, HAS CONTINUED TO LIVE THERE, DESPITE THE ORDER MADE AGAINST HIM. THE SAD THING IS THAT THOSE SAME OFFICIALS ARE AWARE THAT SHE HAS VIOLATED THE ORDER AND HAS DONE NOTHING ABOUT IT. THIS IS THE CORRUPTION THAT IS INVOLVED. ONLY TWO TENANTS WERE ALLOWED TO STAY AT THE BUILDING AS RENTERS, DURING THE INSPECTION. MYSELF AND ANOTHER TENANT NAME MICHELLE, AS BOTH OF OUR RENTAL UNITS WERE OCCUPIED AND LIVED IN, WERE ALLOWED TO STAY, WHILE ALL OF THE OTHERS TENANTS HAD TO GO. THE ORDER WAS ALSO POSTED ON THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING, BY KATHY ROACH, A BUILDING INSPECTOR. I WAS HOME AT THE TIME OF THE INSPECTION, SO I KNOW WHAT WAS SAID AND DONE, BY THE BYLAW OFFICERS. IT ALL FELL OF DEAF EARS, AS FAR AS THE LANDLORDS, WERE CONCERNED. THEY HAVE NEVER COMPLIED WITH THAT ORDER.
NOW THE LANDLORDS ARE FACING SEVERAL CRIMINAL CHARGES, INCLUDING DISOBEYING AN ORDER OF THE COURT, BRIBERY AND CORRUPTION, MONG OTHERS.
HERE IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE, REGARDING A LANDLORD'S SELF HELP METHOD, OF EVICTING A TENANT AND HOW THE COURT ACTUALLY VIEWS IT.
53. If the solicitor counselled or countenanced these clearly illegal acts of his clients his own conduct was outrageous, and well below the standard which the court is entitled to expect from any solicitor licenced to practice as such in Ontario. The policy against self-help - against the recovery of possession of residential premises except under the authority of a writ of possession - is too well established to allow for an exculpatory plea of ignorance of the law from a solicitor purporting to act in this area of the law. The provision prohibiting the changing of locks is very clear - and may be seen as part of the larger policy against self-help. I am convinced that instances of self-help with respect to residential tenancies have a significant potential for begetting violence. A majority of the persons in Metropolitan Toronto live in rented accommodation. The public interest in avoiding self-help remedies is obvious and the public policy is clearly reflected in the legislation. It is not tolerable that solicitors, or other representatives of landlords or tenants, whether through ignorance or defiance, countenance, counsel or assist with illegal activities such as those carried out in this case by Diane and Steve Divitcos.
