Marie wasn’t feeling well when she woke up in the morning, and I had a migraine precursor headache. Marie was upset at the lack of hot water (or water pressure) which made showering impossible, and breakfast a challenge. Her migraine was getting worse as we went to the LTB offices for our hearing.
John and his crew were their usual selves before a hearing. Pollington spit on the back of my head, John threw a balled up piece of paper twice (I recovered one; it was a piece of the Hamilton Spectator, crumpled into a ball. Nothing identifying on it.) and groped his own crotch while picking his nose, then eating the result with apparent relish (a remarkable sight, and not one I’d care to have refreshed in my memory).
Marie began throwing up about a half hour before the hearing. When the hearing began, she was not able to participate, so I asked for an adjournment. Yakhni and John both tried to infer (without actually stating it) that Marie was faking, but it was clear to anyone who saw her that she was unable to function. Mediation was suggested, which broke down a couple of hours later. The highlight of the mediation was a ten minute screaming match between John and Yakhni, when she refused to even ask the mediator for an order that the tenants “not speak to me or my workers when we’re doing repairs”. Yakhni actually tried to explain the Charter implications of such an order, but John wasn’t interested in “Legal mumbo-jumbo about tenants’ rights in my house.” There was no mediator in the room at the time (Rossiter was the mediator, and she kept popping in and out of the hearing room). Working as a paralegal must be tough sometimes, but Yakhni knew what her client was by this point.
The hearing recording is here (Vid 95):
The Interim Order that resulted from the hearing is below (Doc 220):
File Number: SOT-91682-18-IN-2
File Number: SOL-84218-17-IN-2
File Number: SOT-77620-16-IN-2
File Number: SOT-80393-17-IN-2
In the matter of: 2, 99 EAST AVENUE SOUTH HAMILTON ON L8N2T6
Between: Paul Bosch Marie Ball
Paul Bosch (PB) and Marie Ball (MB) (the ‘Tenants’) applied for an order determining that John Cerino (JC) (the ‘Landlord’) harassed, obstructed, coerced, threatened or interfered with them and entered the rental unit illegally.
The Landlord applied for an order to terminate the tenancy and evict the Tenants because they, another occupant of the rental unit or someone they permitted in the residential complex have substantially interfered with the reasonable enjoyment or lawful right, privilege or interest of the Landlord or another tenant.
The Tenants applied for an order determining that the Landlord failed to meet the Landlord’s maintenance obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (the ‘Act’) or failed to comply with health, safety, housing or maintenance standards.
The Tenants applied for an order determining that the Landlord harassed, obstructed, coerced, threatened or interfered with them.
These applications were originally scheduled to be heard on different dates, variously before two adjudicators, Member Henry and Member De Leon Culp However, since that time they were scheduled to be heard together afresh by a panel consisting of these Members.
The hearing was held in Hamilton on September 24, 2018. The Tenants, the Landlord, the Landlord’s Legal Representative. Vidywatte Yahkni, (VY), attended the hearing. At the start of the hearing, PB testified that MB was too unwell to participate in the hearing and that as a result, the Tenants seek an adjournment of the hearing. Specifically, MB was in the midst of a severe migraine headache on the morning of the hearing, as a result of which, before the hearing, she was vomiting profusely into a bucket provided by Board staff.
PB testified that when MB experiences headaches of this magnitude she is unable to “understand”. While MB’s headaches of this magnitude last for unpredictable periods, they can last for up to 10 hours. PB also experiences headaches with this symptomology.
The panel observed that MB was seated at rhe tenant table, doubled over, with her head resting in her folded arms on the table. Other than to mumble softly and unintelligibly, she was unresponsive to the panel’s enquiry into her ability to participate.
VY testified that having observed MB at the hearing site on the morning of the hearing, the Landlord is satisfied MB’s health circumstance would not allow her to participate in the hearing.
However, the Landlord is opposed to the adjournment request because of the age of some of the application files.
Before considering the adjournment request, the panel invited the parties to attempt mediation, partly based on the proposition that that process may be more accessible to MB given its interestbased and non-adversarial nature. The parties were agreeable to mediate.
Mediation failed at 11:55 a.m., at which time the panel decided to adjourn the hearing based on MB’s clear inability to participate in a meaningful way.
Of its own motion the panel instituted paragraphs 1 and 2, below.
The parties agreed to paragraphs 3 to 7, below, to manage various issues between the parties in the applications until the return of this matter.
It is ordered that:
1. The hearing is adjourned to the next available date, peremptory on the Tenants, meaning that absent extraordinary circumstances, the Board expects that the Tenants will be prepared to proceed on the next date.
2. The Tenants shall take necessary steps, such as obtaining a Legal Representative or Legal Agent, to militate against the risk that the medical circumstances of either Tenant might impair their participation on the next date.
3. On or before October 30, 2018, the Landlord shall replace the carpet in bedroom #3.
4. On or before October 30, 2018, the Landlord shall remediate the gap in the front door of unit.
5. Until the return of this matter, the Landlord shall only communicate with PB in writing or by agent.
6. On or before October 30, 2018, the Landlord shall caulk the gaps in the window in the kitchen and the window in the bathroom.
7. Until the return of this matter, each of the Landlord’s notices of entry shall specify the room or rooms in the unit that the Landlord intends to access and shall identify whether the Landlord intends to personally enter the unit.
This hearing used up 2 hours, 30 minutes of two members time (there were recesses not included in the hearing recording), for a total of 5 hours of hearing time and two hours of a mediator’s time.
So far, this disagreement with our landlord had used up 14 hours 40 minutes of hearing time at the LTB, in 10 hearings, two by telephone, seven in person (counting the Case Management Hearing and mediation session of May 19, 2017 as hearings). It has also used up 9 hours and 50 minutes of a mediator’s time.