Chapter 100 – May 28, 2023-September 13, 2023

I will be filling in the events of September 2019 through May 2023 on this blog at a later date. This potion of the blog will detail my efforts to collect on an LTB order for $14.1 K, issued on May 28, 2023. At this point, an LTB order appears to be only suitable for use as litter box liner.

Sunday May 28, 2023 – After eight full hearing days (there will be further posts detailing the events of those hearings) a final order for our T6 application was issued by Amber Neumann, a part-time member of the LTB. The order is here. John would have saved a lot of LTB hearing time, and $6k on the judgement if he’d accepted my offer to settle. Those eight days of hearing time were entirely due to John Cerino’s stubborn irrational attitude (which, if you’ve been reading this blog, shouldn’t surprise you. John’s douchebaggery has cost the public purse north of a million dollars at this point, and it’s about to get more expensive. It seems like a lot to compel a slumlord to compensate tenants for shit stained carpets, but that’s the system we have in Ontario…).

That order gave John Cerino until June 11, 2023 to pay the amount of $14,172.64, with interest starting at 6%/annum on June 12, 2023. It shouldn’t surprise any reader of this blog that John didn’t pay.

Wednesday June 28, 2023 – I attended John Sopinka courthouse in Hamilton and spoke to the Small Claims Court Staff there. Since I have had no idea where John does his banking, or anything else about his finances, I asked for and received a Notice of Examination Hearing (the date of October 4, 2023 was added by the court clerk on August 4, 2023 after I was unable to serve John Cerino in time for the August 1, 2023 hearing date). (Briefly, an examination hearing allows a creditor (me) to ask the debtor (john Cerino) about his personal finances to enforce the judgement.) It was also necessary to file an Affidavit for Enforcement Request, which I did.

Monday July 3, 2023 – Sunday July 30, 2023 – Several unsuccessful attempts were made to serve John Cerino. The last address he had on file with the LTB was his brother Agostino’s house in Stoney Creek and it appears John isn’t living there any more (if he ever did). Agostino Cerino made complaints to police alleging harassment when I attempted to serve John Cerino at 48 Henley Drive, Stoney Creek. That led to the usual bullying behavior by Hamilton Police Services, who (as usual) had been given a very distorted account of events. Details and recordings will be posted to the blog when I get the paperwork I requested through FoI.

Tuesday 1 August 2023 – I attended the Examination hearing with the intention of asking the judge for alternative service in this case. The judge refused, but did tell me I should be serving John’s tenants with a Notice of Garnishment and added that an Examination hearing was wasting my time at this point. I was tempted to explain to the judge that John has a long history of ignoring LTB orders but didn’t. Instead I took his advice. Joseph Kazubek was there, and spoke for John briefly, but indicated that he did not represent John Cerino in this matter. The judge advised Kazubek to “Tell your client Mr Bosch is coming after him with a very big hammer”.

Friday 4 August 2023 – I attended John Sopinka Courthouse in Hamilton, Small Claims Court. There I received an updated Notice of Examination Hearing, with the hearing scheduled for October 4, 2023. I also obtained Notices of Garnishment for Terrance Pollington (Richard) and Christina Stamper. They are both John Cerino’s tenants (and agents) and pay him monthly rent. The Notices of Garnishment are an order from The Superior Court of Justice to pay their monthly rent to the court to satisfy John’s debt.

Later that afternoon, I served Terrance Pollington (Richard) and Christina Stamper with the Notices of Garnishment, along with the blank form required.

Tuesday 8 August 2023 – 09:30 – I obtained a Writ of Seizure and Sale of Land, in case the enforcement needed to go that far. I also filed Affidavits of Service for Terrance Pollington (Richard) and Christina Stamper with the court for the Notices of Garnishment.

As I was waiting at the window in the courthouse, Christina Stamper and Richard Pollington showed up. Christina began screaming that I was “stalking her” and complained to the auxiliary police at the courthouse. She also began photographing me. Her complaint didn’t go very far, but she tried.

10:30 – Pollington and Stamper then followed me after I left the courthouse, for about three blocks. When I became aware of them, I lost them quite easily. Then I went to Central on King William street in Hamilton to make a complaint (Incident # 23727584. I’ll update this post when I have a copy of the Occurrence Report. I filed the FoI request on 23 August, 2023). That didn’t do any good either. Pollington and Stamper arrived about five minutes after I did, to make a complaint that I was following them.

19:15 – Spoke to Roy Wilkie, the superintendent of 118-120 Wellington Street North, another of John Cerino’s buildings. Roy told me John had moved to Dunnville two to three years ago. He didn’t know John’s exact address, but he told me it was on Cedar Street in Dunnville. He also told me John had only two properties left in Hamilton (John sold 6 Acorn and 331-333 Wellington Street North) and owned two in Dunnville, and that John regularly visited the MacDonald’s in Dunnville every morning between 6:30 am and 8:30 am. That last is consistent with John’s habits before he moved out of Hamilton; John doesn’t cook for himself. Roy was quite co-operative and assured me he “would not oppose the order” if he was served.

Wednesday 9 August 2023 – Thursday 10 August 2023 – I spent about three hours total looking through Google street maps for John’s (distinctive) pair of Ford pickup trucks. I found them parked at 1012 Cedar Street in Dunnville, so I had an address for service.

I mailed a copy of the documents to John by registered mail.

Friday 11 August 2023 – Made two attempts to serve John Cerino in person, at his home and at his favorite restaurant (MacDonald’s). No luck.

Tuesday 15 August 2023 – 10:30 am – Attempted to serve John Cerino at his home. Nobody there.

11:20 am – Served John Cerino with Two Affidavits for Enforcement Requests (for the Notices of Garnishment) and copies of the Notices of Garnishment, as well as a copy of the Writ for Seizure and Sale of Land, and a Notice of Examination Hearing for October 4, 2023.

If you were listening carefully to the audio in the video of me serving John with the mound of paperwork, you would have heard John say “Suck my cock”. I did not respond to his offer at the time, but a bit later I emailed his paralegal, Joseph Kazubek, to bring him up to speed and to decline John’s offer. (There will be considerable discussion of Mr Kazubek’s sharp practice, delaying tactics and bullying behavior, some of which appears to be violations of the ethical standards required of licensees. Or maybe paralegals are supposed to be as sleazy, disorganized and pretentious as he is, I really don’t know. He’s a real piece of work).

Thursday 17 August 2023 – This was a day of online hearings for our three T2 applications. Once I have legal advice about exactly how much of that I can publish, I will. The short version is that Kazubek wasted a fair amount of time pursuing the theory that John honestly believed that the interval for time of entry on a Notice of Entry was the time he was to spend in our unit. It isn’t, and a landlord with 47 years experience (with a partner who has another 47 years of experience and a licensed paralegal retained who “specialized” in Residential Tenancy law) ought to have known better.

In fact, John did know better. But even if he didn’t, a landlord has a positive obligation to understand the law. It became very apparent during the T6 hearings that John has no understanding of even the basics of residential tenancy law. He’s never bothered to learn anything about it. (And why should he? There are no consequences for ignoring those laws, and the LTB is ever ready with an eviction order for any tenant who complains.)

This appears to be another of Kazubek’s time wasting attempts to justify the unjustifiable (as when he tried to convince Member Neumann that staples in the wall were a normal part of painting during the T6 hearings. It turns out Member Neumann knows which end of a paint brush has bristles, and which end has a handle. Or the time Kazubek spent 40 minutes establishing that we knew there were some maintenance deficiencies prior to moving in, which makes absolutely no difference. He spent a lot of time suggesting that tenants’ foreknowledge of maintenance deficiencies somehow relieved the landlord of the obligation to repair them. It doesn’t, and Kazubek knew it. He was wasting time. The member finally shut it down.) A landlord has a positive obligation to be aware of the law, and this is as basic as it gets.

What follows is a summary of the hearing, with transcripts of Kazubek’s cross examination:

08:10 – Hearing starts (8:59 am)

-Bosch and Kazubek present, member states that is a “special” (full day of hearings for one matter)

– Tenants Exhibit 54 (Narrative) is most of evidence in chief

10:00 – Member acknowledges USB drive was sent

11:10 – Member says staff did not forward drive to her, evidence was not uploaded to TOP, member says it will be done before we conclude

13:00 – I tell member Ms Ball wants to join litigation. Member says she has not appeared before the board.

15:00 – Member warns me to keep Marie’s testimony to things that she experienced and I did not only

17:00 – member asks about indexes of new material after some technical difficulty (on the member’s part) Kazubek agrees that he has an index of new material (at 22:40)

25:15 – Member says she has difficulty viewing “some” material on the flash drive

26:35 – Preliminary Issues

1. Points on T6 won’t be transferred (member has NOT seen T6 final order…)
2. Member will not permit any amendments
3. Kazubek doesn’t have to turn on his camera

34:20 – Main event starts

-member tells me that all documents associated with the Narrative document (Doc-000-1) are entered into evidence

35:00 – I tell the member that testimony is complete for the first two applications, I will be filling in the gaps for the third application, member clarifies which file we are speaking about

35-37:00 – member reviews her notes, out loud

I start at p473 Aug 24, 2019. Member tells me to stick to things not on the narrative

August 24, 2019 – someone was painting me with a laser. I also spoke about the car horns in the driveway over a period of months.

Events after our tenancy are not relevant to application.

September 6, 2019 – events were discussed, and I made the member aware that there were other conversations between John and his agents. Member asked if recorded them, I said no.

September 27, 2019 – paid legal fees

46:00 – I mention that John’s rep prepared Pollington’s private complaint.

48:00 – discussion of perjury during private complaint

49:30 – discussion of events of November 23, 2018

50:30 – Kazubek asks me to slow down and specify document I am reading from

51:15 – reference to p 304 of Doc-000-1- Narrative (Chapter 38)

54:00 – discussion of harassment after my father died

56:15 – discussion of events of December 6, 2018

1:00:00 – served with N5 Oct 11, 2019

• Discussion of rehashed N5 notices
• Spoke about John’s repeated vexatious litigation
• Member says that I should have brought a motion against Kazubek

1:04:00 – discussion of John’s assaults

1:05:30 – discussion of final L1 hearing in November 2019 – I told member about John shooting me with toothpick crossbow in back of neck

1:07:00 – Doc 375 (Kabuzek resignation letter) introduced (member cannot open file)

1:08:11 – member states that she can’t allow screen sharing

1:10:00 – member overrules Kazubek’s objection to the introduction of Doc 375

1:13:00 – discussion of events after L1 hearing in Nov 2019

1:16:00 – discussion of lack of consequences for ignoring summonses

1:19:00 – discussion of letter of trespass in Nov 2019

• Introduced video vid 2019-11-19 – interview with HPS (in new folder of videos
• Introduced trespass letter

1:22:00 – discussion of C Stamper’s threats January 10, 2020

• Witness heard, but did not see events

1:24:30 – break soon

1:25:00 – Kazubek asks that I go through damages claimed (member says no)

1:27:00 – break until 10:35

1:31:00 – back at it

1:32:00 – will present receipts in the future

1:34:00 – discussion of rent paid during tenancy

*** L1 order for final L1 hearing

1:38:00 – discussion of surveillance equipment in unit – 3 audio recorders and two cameras (2 in living room, 1 in hallway between bedrooms, and an audio recording device in the kitchen).

1:42:00 – evidence for general damages

• Told member about lack of respect for my home

1:48:00 – discussion of body armour (Note: I told the member the armor had been created about 25 years ago. Actually, it was 32 years ago at that point.)

1:49:30 – told member about shrink and idiot doctor

1:55:00 – felt unsafe in my home

1:55:55 – Kazubek asks for “environmental break”

2:01:00 – hearing resumes

Cross Examination

1. Kazubek starts with Application #3

Kazubek: Mr Bosch, can you explain to me what is, what is a Notice of Entry supposed to look like?

Bosch: A Notice of Entry?

Kazubek: Yes

Bosch: Well, there’s guidleines published on the LTB web site. Generally speaking, it serves as notice to the tenant that the landlord will be entering and what the landlord will be doing while he’s in your home

Kazubek: Okay

Bosch: Uh, I mean if you wanted the specifics, they’re on the LTB website. It has to have the date, the address, the areas to be accessed, time of entry, and there are constraints on how that time of entry is given, and so on. I’m sure you’re just as familiar with them as I am, probably more so.

Kazubek: I am. The Notices that you received from the landlord, how were they flawed?

Bosch: Well, in various ways. Ah, most of them were too general, they would say, ah, I will be repairing in apartment two. That doesn’t tell us much. The notices did become quite contentious, as I’m sure you’re aware, because the landlord would not correct these deficiencies. He just kept giving us vague notices, or contradictory notices or notices that did not comply with interim orders. So, various ways, I guess is the short way to answer your question. If you have a specific notice I can tell you how it was deficient.

Kazubek: Did the landlord ever force his way into your unit?

Bosch: Forced? Define force, Joe.

Kazubek: Did he ever enter your unit without your consent?

Bosch: Yes, many times. He did enter our unit with acquiescence on occasion.

Carey: Pardon? I didn’t hear the answer. Sorry. Did he ever enter without consent?

Bosch: And the answer was many times, but with acquiescence on many occasions, rather than consent.

Kazubek: I’m sorry, I’m not understanding. What do you mean?

Bosch: You don’t understand the difference between acquiescence and consent?

Carey: The question is, what is the difference. So he’s asking you to define it. What is the difference in your mind, Mr Bosch?

Bosch: All right. Joe, If I say “hey, can you hand me a Kleenex there” and you do, that’s consent. If I point a gun at you, and say “Hey, can you hand me a kleenex?” and you do, that’s acquiescence.

Kazubek: And how did that occur in this situation?

Bosch: Because the only way to get our repairs done was to let Mr Cerino in and tolerate his lunatic behavior. Municipal law enforcement made that quite clear.

Carey: So, I’m sorry. You’re going to have to say that again. I’m having difficulty keeping up. So we need to go slowly and speak directly into the camera. So the question was … I didn’t … didn’t even record the question. So…

Kazubek: Sorry madam. The question was how did that occur in this situation?

Carey: Okay, yes.

Bosch: Okay. Again, in various ways, but in general, the only way to get the repairs done, which was made clear to us by municipal law enforcement, was to allow Mr Cerino to personally enter the apartment. As far as I’m concerned, every entry after Ms Ball requested accommodation was unlawful, but John kept insisting on coming into the apartment to do the repairs himself and he would act in a manner that you’ve seen for yourself in the videos, I think, or will see. So, it was a choice of “Hey, get lost” in which case municipal law enforcement made it clear that they would not enforce the work orders, or, let him in so he could do his work. But he wasn’t there to work, he was there to antagonize. So that’s the difference between consent and acquiescence Joe. If he’d showed up and knocked on the door and said “I want to fix this” and actually fixed it, that would be consent. If he shows up with a posse of cops and insist that he has the right to come in, and the cops act just like he does, that’s acquiescence.

Kazubek: How did the flawed notices affect his ability to correct the situation? And why were the flawed notices an issue with you if he was coming in to make repairs?

Bosch: Because we had no idea which part of the apartment to prepare and John would always find fault.

Kazubek: Okay, so how did that affect you?

Bosch: We did not know which areas of the apartment to prepare, Joe.

Kazubek: But would you not know which areas of the apartment you complained about maintenance issues to the landlord about?

Bosch: Okay, well if you’ve read that list of maintenance issues, you’ll see that it covers the entire apartment.

Kazubek: So you would be under the understanding that he would address the entire apartment, correct?

Bosch: Not all at once on every entry, Joe. There was too much work to be done on any one entry. So all we asked him to do was specify which areas on which days. That’s it.

Kazubek: Okay. Did you ever refuse access?

Bosch: No. With the possible exception of July 18, 2017. You can listen to the recording yourself. I’m of the opinion that was not a refusal of access.

Carey: I’m sorry, what was the date again? July…

Bosch: July 18^th

Carey: 2017?

Bosch: Correct. There is an audio recording of Mr Cerino’s umm…demands to enter the unit and refusal to answer questions about why. Basically, John treated notices of entry like carte blanche, signed by the Cardinal Richelieu himself.

Kazubek: Okay. At any time during these, uh, flawed notices of entry, were any of these based on Property Standards orders?

Bosch: Yes, some of them, apparently.

Kazubek: Do you…do you have any idea of how many were?

Bosch: How many of what were?

Kazubek: How many of the flawed notices of entry were based on a Property Standards order?

Bosch: I don’t know what most of those notices were for, Joe, so I have no idea. All it said on the notice was “we’ll be there to repair”. Well…repair what?

Kazubek: Did the landlord ever refuse to give you more details?

Bosch: Many times.

Kazubek: At the time if entry.

Bosch: Many times. That’s in the videos. As a matter of fact, Mr Cerino has explicitly said that he has never communicated with a tenant about repairs. And that appears to be a fact.

Kazubek: Can you point me in the direction of that, uh, evidence?

Bosch: That would be the conversation on February 1, 2017, the video recorded conversation, it’s in there.

Kazubek: Okay.

Bosch: Several other places, but that one just …

Kazubek: {Unintelligible} Madame adjudicator, there might be a little delay between questions as I’m writing notes. I do apologize.

Carey: And so you should. And take your time {unintelligible}

Kazubek: Mr Bosch, how many notices have you received over the length of your tenancy that were flawed?

Bosch: Upwards of fifty, I think. I didn’t total up the exact number.

Kazubek: Okay, how many were correct?

Bosch: None come to mind, offhand. It’s possible there were one or two in there that were correct, but none come to mind.

Kazubek: So, when you received a notice that was not…that was flawed, what damages would you have incurred at that moment?

Bosch: All right, I’m not sure how to explain this but entering someone else’s home is something we take seriously in this society Joe. Um…if you’re doing that you really ought to dot your I’s and cross your t’s particularly when your entry was contentious, which this was. So…

Kazubek: I was just…I’ll re-ask the question because I don’t think you understand what I was getting at. I’m trying to determine what financial hardship did you incur, or what emotional damages you incurred each time there was a flawed notice where the landlord came in to correct a known maintenance issue?

2:11:41 Bosch: It pissed me off, Joe.

Carey: So sir…Mr Bosch I’m gonna ask you to stop referring to Mr Kazubek as Joe. Um, unless he gives permission to do so. It’s kind of rude. Mr Kazubek do you mind him referring to you as Joe?…Mr Kazubek?

Kazubek” I’m not gonna be petty over it, I don’t care.

Carey; All right {unintelligible}. Mr Bosch try to refrain from doing it. It’s just…disrespectful, if you can. Okay, so next question. Oh, the question, I’m sorry, needed to be answered. What financial hardship or emotional impact did you experience when there was a flawed notice? And what I heard was that “It made me angry”. Is that right?

Bosch: Uh, well you paraphrased but that’s correct madame chair.

Carey: Okay

Bosch and Kuzubek both speak at the same time, both shut up at the same time.

Kazubek: Sorry.

Bosch: It does make me angry. I mean, Mr Cerino has been a landlord for half a century now. He really should have the concept of a notice of entry down pat, and he doesn’t. And that became very apparent.

Kazubek: So Mr Bosch did you ever have to cancel plans, to turn away guests, because there was an entry occurring?

Bosch: Frequently. Why?

Kazubek: Based on the flawed notices. So, I’ll re-ask when you received a flawed notice…

Bosch: Right

Kazubek: and the landlord attended the property, did you ever have to turn away guests or cancel plans because of him entering your unit?

Bosch: Yes.

Kazubek: Can you elaborate on that?

Bosch: Uh, okay there was one entry in June where we had planned a get together with some friends which we did cut short thanks to John’s behavior. Um, there were any number of times where we had to change work schedules or miss a day’s work to be there to monitor John while he was inside the apartment. Um…specific dates…they would be in the narrative there Joe, Mr Kazubek…

Kazubek: Mr Bosch, the flawed notices, did they have the time and date he was going to attend?

Bosch: Well, sometimes.

Kazubek: Can you please describe er sus…uh explain any time with a notice where a time and date wasn’t provided?

Bosch: All right. Hang on. {lengthy pause} all right that one’s not a notice {lengthy pause} Okay. Document 187, is a notice to Mair Ball, that I Agostino Cerino will replace window in apartment 2 99 east avenue south, starting January eighth, eighteen, January ninth eighteen, starting time 10 am to 4 pm. There’s one.

Kazubek: Can you explain to me what was flawed in that notice?

Bosch: Replacing which window? There are nine of them in that unit. Ah..

Kazubek: Was it, Mr Bosch was there a bylaw order required for windows to be replaced?

Bosch: At that point, no.

John Cerino: {indistinct}

Bosch: At that point the uhh…the compliance order for the windows had been passed by bylaw uh, the repairs rather, had been passed by bylaw as of July 20, 2017. But they weren’t fixed.

Kazubek: Mr Bosch was all the windows in the unit require maintenance?

Bosch: When Joe? At some point they all did, so when are you talking about?

Kazubek: So while that notice w…while that notice of entry was served upon your unit, at that moment, was there maintenance issues with, plural, the windows.

Bosch: Uh, lemme see, at that point there would have been the gap in the bathroom window, the gap in the kitchen window, the gap in the centre window in the living room, and…I think that was it. So there would have been three windows.

Kazubek: So plural, windows, would have suitable for that entry, correct?

Bosch: Well, if he were going to repair all three windows in one entry, yes. That’s unlikely.

Kazubek: Okay, were all windows repaired in that one entry?

Bosch: No, not that I recall. I think he had to come back.

Kazubek: But based on the fact that all windows did eventually get repaired?

Bosch: Well no, some of those windows still needed repairing at the end of our tenancy.

Kazubek: Okay. But during that notice of entry, did he only focus on one window or did he address multiple windows?

Bosch: I don’t know.

Kazubek: Mr Bosch do you have a recording of the events that occurred that day?

Bosch: I believe I might, but I don’t think it was included with the disclosure. It was routine repair work.

Kazubek: So we have the notice of entry for windows, and the issue with that notice of entry…

Bosch: No. We have a notice of entry to repair a window. Singular, Joe. Sorry, singular Mr Kazubek.

Kazubek: Yes. So your concern in that notice of entry was he didn’t put which room the notice…where the repairs were going to occur?

Bosch: Well, that and the fact that his time of entry is a window that’s five hours wide. Okay, he was doing those repairs in person, so he had absolute control over what time he came in, he should have been a little more specific than that, I think.

Kazubek: Do you know what the requirement is for a notice of entry, for time, length?

Bosch: Well, the case law says anything more than six hours is suspect, but basically, it’s depending on the circumstances. Now in this case…

Kazubek {Interrupts} So ..

Bosch: The repair was done by the landlord in person, so he should have the time nailed down pretty close.

Kazubek: So we can confirm that a six hour block is currently the case law?

Carey: I…I actually don’t expect Mr Bosch to know anything about case law whatsoever, um, and I can tell you, having written much of the case law, that an acceptable range depends on the nature of the entry and who’s doing it. So if the entry requires an outside contractor, for example, and the outside contractor gives you a six hour window, then a six hour window is completely reasonable. If the entry is being done by people who  are directly employed or the landlord himself, then usually a six hour window would not be reasonable. So asking Mr Bosch questions about case law is not helpful Mr Kazubek. So…

Kazubek: {Interrupts} Well, madame adjudicator the reason for that question is that I’m trying to determine if a six hour window, ah, a five hour window wasn’t acceptable.

Carey: And his answer was he was doing…because the landlord himself was doing the repairs himself in person  and had control over his own time.

Kazubek: Thank you madame.

Bosch: And that was a feature of John’s notices of entry. Um, there would always be this large window, and uh, okay. Did you need another example of a deficient notice?

Kazubek: Please.

Bosch: Okay…{unintelligible} {pause}Document 120, notice of entry for June 14.

Carey: Year please, don’t forget year.

Bosch: I’m sorry, June 14^th 2017. Ah, it reads to Marie Ball and Paul Bosch, I will be working in apartment number two at 99 east avenue south June 14^th seventeen, time 10am to 1 pm, John Cerino, Agostino Cerino and there’s a phone number. There are two signatures on it, uh..

Kazubek: Okay what’s the whole issue in that notice?

Bosch: Okay, first of all, it’s a three hour window, um, it says “I” will be working in apartment number two, so who is the “I”?, because there’s two signatures there. Ah, and what is it he will be working on in the apartment?

Kazubek: Was there any bylaw orders during that period?

Bosch: If I’m not mistaken there were three compliance orders at that point, yes.

Kazubek: Okay and during that entry was those three orders addressed?

Bosch: June 12? Or sorry, June 14^th? I’d have to check the narrative. One second. {45 second pause} Yeah, Agostino worked on the bathroom window by himself.

Kazubek: Sorry, could you repeat that?

Bosch: Agostino worked on the bathroom window by himself.

Kazubek: okay.

Bosch: Now if I’m not mistaken the bathroom window was still the subject of a compliance order at that point, so I guess yes, he was working on something from the city.

Kazubek: And were you aware of the compliance orders?

Bosch: Yes.

Kazubek: At the time…

Bosch: Yes, but they covered the entire apartment. Telling me you’re coming to do something on the compliance orders doesn’t tell me anything.

Kazubek: So the only issue was that you weren’t getting the room that the repairs {unintelligible}

Bosch: We didn’t know which areas to prepare, we didn’t know whether or not John would be coming in person and we didn’t know when he would be there.

Kazubek: Okay. And was it a problem if John came in person or not?

Bosch: Very much so.

Kazubek: Can you explain why?

Bosch: Because he acts like an antagonistic bully. And we don’t…

Kazubek: Okay.

Bosch: We do not allow bullies in our home.

2:25:29

Kazubek: Okay. Did you ever invite John into your home?

Bosch: Uh, once or twice at the very beginning, yes.

Kazubek: And towards the end at all?

Bosch: No. As a matter of fact I told him if he entered my unit again he would be removed by force.

Kazubek: Okay. Was there any discussion between yourself and the landlord where there’d be ah, a remedy offered for the flawed notices?

Bosch: Well, in the beginning, Agostino made an effort to correct it but he’d keep getting it wrong. He’d make a different mistake and he became frustrated and thought I was nit picking. But what it boiled down to was that I wanted to know when they’d be in, who was coming and what they were doing which is reasonable for something going on in my own home.

Kazubek: Okay. Was there a discussion during any landlord tenant board hearings of how to remedy the flawed notices?

Bosch: Yeah, there were a couple of orders that specified what John should have done, but he didn’t.

Kazubek: Okay and when you got those orders what was considered to be a …what was the order to do to ensure that the notice wasn’t flawed?

Bosch: uh, okay if I recall correctly, John was supposed to specify whether or not he would personally enter the apartment.

Carey: Pardon? Sorry, John was supposed to specify…

Bosch: Whether or not he would be personally entering the apartment for repairs and uh…what repairs they were if I remember correctly.

Kazubek: Okay. And after that order was the notices corrected?

Bosch: No.

Kazubek: Do you have any examples?

Bosch: {40 second pause} If I’m not mistaken the very first one was.

Carey: So he’s asking for ones after the board’s order with respect to what a notice should say {unintelligible} referred to. I don’t know the date but it would be after that fact. I think you may be referring to a board order issued October 11, 2017 so it would be after that.

Bosch: let me refresh my memory. 2017?

Carey: Well, I know there was a board order issued on Oct 11, 2017, that had something to do with entry.

Bosch: 2018 madame chair.

Carey: I’m just reading your own documents.

Bosch: That may be a typo. {pause, muttering} The interim order you are referring to madame that was document 220? Yeah, that was 2018. If it says different then that’s a typo.

Kazubek: So Mr Bosch I’ll maybe make this a little easier. In your T2 application, you state that Notices of Entry October 16, 2018 and October 17, November 22, December 6 of all 2018, did not comply with the order dated October 11, 2018.

Bosch: Okay.

Kazubek: What was…what were the flaw in those notices?

Bosch: Give me a second to pull this up {pause} Sorry, could you give me that first date again, Mr Kazubek? October 16^th I think you said.

Kazubek: Yes, October 16^th.

Bosch: Okay…um, all right. So if you read the interim order…just a second…uh, paragraph7. Until the return of this matter 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. Okay, that’s pretty clear. Um, the notice that I got, presumably in response to this order, reads:

Date: October…sorry it’s Document 222, and it reads: Date October 14 2018 to Marie Ball and Paul Bosch I will be working in apartment number 2 at 99 east avenue south October 16 and October 17, 2018. We will replace bedroom carpet, repair window gaps and door sweep. October 16 2018 starting time 10 am to 4 pm October 17 2018. And there’s a list of names underneath, John Cerino, Agostino Cerino, Roy and Rick Pollington. There are two signatures, John and Agostino Cerino.

Kazubek: Okay, let’s speak about that notice first. When there’s two signatures, would that imply that the signing party is the one that is referred to when it says I?

Bosch: No.

Kazubek: {Pause} Why not?

Bosch: “I” is a singular pronoun, Mr Kazubek. It refers to an individual, one person.

Kazubek: But by signing the letter himself, would that not conclude the letter was written by him, himself? When he referred to “I” was that not referring to himself?

Bosch: Well, it was also signed by Agostino Cerino. You could make the same argument that Agostino wrote it, and Agostino would be the one entering.

Kazubek: I actually would be making that argument, that they both signed the letter because they both wrote it. Would you not be able to…would you have not reasonably understand that that may have been what they meant by it?

Bosch: No.

Kazubek: Okay. What was the other issue with the notice?

Bosch: It doesn’t specify what rooms they’ll be entering on what day.

Kazubek: Okay. The Notice said that we will be replacing the carpets in the bedrooms. Was that plural or singular?

Bosch: We will replace bedroom carpet.

Kazubek: Okay. Was there only one carpet to be replaced?

Bosch: No, there were three.

Kazubek: Okay but was any of these per an order from bylaw?

Bosch: None of them were.

Kazubek: Or ltb?

Bosch: The LTB was, yeah. There was one for the one bedroom.

Kazubek: Okay. So….

Bosch: Let me double check that.

Kazubek: Okay.

Bosch: yup. Actually it’s paragraph three of that same order.

Kazubek: So the landlord served a notice what he believed that he specified he was entering the unit, to do repairs on a bedroom that was part of an LTB order. Was there any other orders that may led you to believe that he replaced carpets in other rooms?

Bosch: Not that I recall, no.

Kazubek: Okay, so it would be reasonable to think that he’s coming to fix that order.

Bosch: No. Because it also says repair window gaps and door sweep.  

Kazubek: Okay. Was there any damage to the windows in that bedroom?

Bosch: Yeah, I think there was actually.

Kazubek: Okay. And the door sweep, was that part of that bedroom?

Bosch: No.

Kazubek: Okay, was that part of the LTB order?

Bosch: Uh, yeah that would have been para four; on or before October 30^th the landlord shall remediate the gap in the door at the front of the unit.

Kazubek: Okay. And in that order was there any order for a window to be repaired?

Bosch: In the LTB order?

Kazubek: Yes sir, the one that caused him to provide you with notice that…

Bosch: Paragraph six. The landlord shall caulk the gaps in the window of the kitchen, and the window in the bathroom. So there’s actually two windows on the LTB order.

Kazubek: I’m just taking notes, ma’am.

Carey: No, go ahead. Please do.

Bosch: So I guess my objection to this would be which windows are you working on, what days are you going to be in what areas of the apartment…

Carey: Just give us a moment Mr Bosch, all right? Um, tenant duty counsel just entered my room so I just need a couple minutes and Mr Kazubek’s making notes. Hold on two seconds. Tenant duty counsel. Good morning.

TDC: Good morning madame chair, thank you for letting me in.

Carey: I’m running a special today that’s ongoing, um, this is like, I dunno what day it is, ah Mr Bosch is here, tenant duty counsel is here Mr Bosch. He’s in the middle of cross examination um, so…Mr Bosch did you want to talk to tenant duty counsel?

Bosch: no, I think we’re past that madame chair.

Carey: I think so too. So thank you very much tenant duty counsel, we won’t need you today, thank you very much.

TDC: Ah, madame chair I see three files in this room.

Carey: yes, they’re all Mr Bosch’s files, they’re all the same property. Okay?

TDC: Okay, thank you.

Carey: Thank you. Sorry about that…ah…okay. So the last question I wrote down was “Did the LTB order mention windows? Yes, in paragraph six windows in the kitchen and bathroom were mentioned in the LTB order. Next question, Mr Kazubek?

Kazubek: Thank you madame adjudicator. Mr Bosch, would you have assumed, that while having a notice for repairs to be done in the unit, that the notice of entry which stated…uh…references what that order required him to repair would specify the locations of the room?

Bosch: No.

Kazubek: Was there any other outstanding notices at this time?

Bosch: Not that I’m aware of.

Kazubek: Was there any other outstanding orders at this time?

Bosch: Not that I recall.

Kazubek: Okay, the only outstanding order, or notice, or maintenance request was what was mentioned in the LTB order that the landlord mentioned in his notice of entry? In vague terms, he did.

Bosch: Okay. What it doesn’t say….

Carey: I think what he’s asking you Mr Bosch, is it possible the landlord was referring to something else?

Bosch: It seems unlikely. But I don’t know, you’d have to ask the landlord.

Carey: Yup.

Kazubek: Well, no, Mr Bosch, I was asking your opinion. From your understanding. What do you think {unintelligible}

Bosch: Okay, reading this I don’t know who’s coming in, I’m really not sure on the time since it’s a six hour window, ah, I don’t know what repairs are going to be done on which days of entry.

Kazubek: Okay, so the concern of the time, is that that the window was too big? Six hours?

Bosch: Yeah. That’s completely unreasonable. Mr Cerino had a habit of having us wait around. Sometimes he wouldn’t even show up.

Kazubek: Mr Bosch, have you ever replaced a window.

Bosch: Yes.

Kazubek: Have you ever replaced a carpet?

Bosch: Yes.

Kazubek: Have you ever replaced a door sweep?

Bosch: yes.

Kazubek: So in your experience, how long would it take you to do the three repairs, with the four names mentioned in the notice of entry?

Bosch: replacing the door sweep was a fifteen minute job. Replacing the carpet? A crew of two I would probably estimate that job at two hours, and that would be generous. Ah, replacing those window gaps? That’s a little more involved…ahh…for both windows I’m gonna guess about five or six hours. It depends, you know…ah, see Agostino never disassembled the frame to look for any further damage. I would have so that might have turned into a week long job to fix it right. Umm…yeah. Five or six hours to slap a band aid on it so it passed bylaw makes sense.

Kazubek: So the window that he put in the notice actually was reasonable then, in your experience.

Carey: What? What is reasonable?

Kazubek: A time frame. Sorry.

Carey: A time frame for entry is not “The work is gonna take six hours” its “I’m arriving at ten o’clock”

Bosch: Yes

Carey: Or I’m arriving between ten and two. Or I’m arriving between ten and five. That’s what we mean when we put…there’s a range with respect to entry, not how long the work is gonna take. Okay. It’s when the entry will occur. I’m arriving at this time.

Kazubek: Yes madame adjudicator, the landlord, the landlord though when he did his notice of entries…I’ll question him on that when I put the evidence out, is that’s how long they were gonna be in the unit. Well, I’ll move on from that question.

Carey: Well, let’s ask Mr Bosch. Did you understand from the notices, Mr Bosch, that the range was not with respect to arrival, but how long the landlord expected the work to be?

Bosch: No, and they insisted that that was the case and that’s what the law said and it was…it’s not. Pure and simple.

Carey: So, I don’t know…what did you understand the range to be?

Bosch: The range means that they will be arriving at our unit some time between 10 am and 4 pm.

Carey: Yup. Yes.

Bosch: Which is ridiculous.

Kazubek: So Mr Bosch, when you received a notice of entry did they ever stay past the time mentioned in the notice of entry?

Bosch: Yeah, of course.

Kazubek: Do you remember when?

Bosch: Offhand, no. Okay, let me…I want to be sure I understood what you are asking. You’re telling me, you’re asking me if they stayed past their time of entry?

2:43:00

Kazubek: So I’m asking you in the block time that they would put on the notice, did they ever stay past that time? Or come before that time?

Bosch: Come before? Yes, definitely. John had a habit of that in the beginning. After? I’d have to check times, but yeah, I believe so.

Kazubek: Okay.

Bosch: But I’m not…I’m still not completely sure I’m satisfied that I completely understand what you mean. You seem to be asking me if your client left our unit at any time past their time of entry. Uh, …

Kazubek: So Mr Bosch, the question is, on that notice that you had, what was the time frame given?

Bosch: 10 am to 4 pm.

Kazubek: Okay. And at four oh one, were they still in your unit.

Bosch: Hang on, I’ll have to check my notes.

Kazubek: Please do.

Carey: Why do I care Mr Kazubek? Why is that relevant?

Kazubek: Because it’s going into the argument that the notices provided were for how long that the landlord planned to be in the unit.

Carey: That’s not the purpose of what the time is supposed to be on a notice.

Kazubek: I understand that madame, but the tenant mentioned that the landlord has advised or led or argued that that’s what he meant {unintelligible} when they provided notice. So when the tenant is arguing that the length of the work, or the notice of entry, was too vague, our position is that that is not actually the entry time, that’s the time that they’re gonna be in the unit.

Carey: Oh. So that was the landlord’s intent.

Kazubek: Yes.

Carey: That was the work time. Okay. And so the question, Mr Bosch, was on that particular date, was the landlord in the unit at 4:01 pm. Do you have access to that information? Can you figure that out?

Bosch: A moment madame chair.

Carey: One moment, I have somebody else entering.

Bosch: Okay. Well, working from the lengths of the videos recorded by the stationary cameras in out unit, they would have left, finished that work, just around four o’clock. Hello?

INTERNET DISCONNECTED.

2:49:00

Carey: There you go.

Bosch: Ah. Phew.

Carey: You got dumped out so we were just waiting for you to rejoin us Mr Bosch. Okay, so, where we were was the question of that particular entry was did the landlord leave by 4:01 or were they still in the unit?

Bosch: Judging from the lengths of the videos recorded that day he would have left right around 4 pm. I can’t be any more specific than that.

Carey: Okay. Next question Mr Kazubek. Are you with us?

Kazubek: I am Madame Adjudicator.

Carey: Mr Bosch I must tell you that your computer is glitching. So I can see a green background and your computer screen coming and going. You might need to turn off…oh, that’s better. I can see you now. We don’t want you to be dumped out if we can stop it so you let me know if you need to turn off your camera because of your bandwidth. If you have to you have to but we’re gonna continue as best we can. And we’ll take a lunch break when you need it. A good … tell me when you’ve got a convenient break time Mr Kazubek, in terms of your examination then, okay? Are you there Mr Kazubek?

Kazubek: Yes madame adjudicator. What I’m gonna say is that I have about ten more minutes of questions on notice of entries, I would say we can go for a break when that part is …

Carey: Okay. So let’s do that. Is that okay Mr Bosch?

Bosch: That’s fine.

Carey: Okay, good. So next question Mr Kazubek.

Kazubek: Thank you. At any time, sorry, one second.

Carey: Yup

Kazubek: During the time that you were getting notices that were flawed, did you ever make any reports to bylaw that repairs weren’t getting done?

Bosch: yes.

Kazubek: Okay, can you explain a little more about that?

Bosch: Well, the deadline for the compliance order written in January 2017 was April 30 of 2017, and the windows were not fixed as of April 30, 2017 so we began complaining to bylaw that the repairs had not been comdone. Mr Cerino hadn’t even entered to fix the windows at that point. He didn’t start working on those windows until bylaw got in touch with him and said “Hey, now’s the time.”

Kazubek: Did bylaw ever ask you about notices of entry?

Bosch: Ah, one of their supervisors, Lynne Shewfelt, told me that we had refused to let the landlord in because his notice of entry was deficient and she…

Carey: I’m sorry, say that again.

Bosch: One of the…uh, the supervisor from Property Standards, Lynne Shewfelt, she did say to me that Mr Cerino had claimed to been refused entry because the notice of entry was deficient. And I don’t remember what notice she showed me, but it was indeed deficient but, nevertheless, we had let Mr Cerino into the unit and video taped it. Um, I offered to show her those videos, she said no. Ah, she just took John’s word that he had been refused entry.

Kazubek: Mr Bosch, do you remember a time and date of that notice of entry?

Bosch: I just told you, I didn’t remember which one it was.

Kazubek: Do you remember the time and date of that conversation?

Bosch: Ah, that would have been in June of 2017.

Kazubek: Was, is there a recording of that conversation?

Bosch: Not that was disclosed, no.

Kazubek: Do you have a copy of that conversation?

Bosch: Somewhere.

Kazubek: Okay.

Bosch: What’s the difference? That’s by…I’m gonna object to these questions. This is bylaw’s misbehavior, not the landlord.

Carey: Well, Mr Kazubek do you want to respond to that?

Kazubek: I…I can retract my question Madame Adjudicator. The question was simply, did bylaw talk to him about it, he said yes. That’s all that was relevant in the answer to that question.

Carey: Okay.

Kazubek: Did bylaw ever advise you what would happen if you refused access?

Bosch: yes. They said that uh, if he couldn’t get in to do the work, they were not going to enforce the compliance orders. Now I did point out to that officer that there was no reason for John to personally attend to do the work. That officer was under the impression that a landlord had to attend in person.

Kazubek: Why do you believe that John shouldn’t have, or had the ability to correct or repair a maintenance request on property that he owns.

Bosch: Well, I’d been living in a building that he maintained for thirty some odd years and that was enough to tell me that he’s utterly incompetent at repairs. But even…

Kazubek: Mr Bosch {unintelligible} The question is, why would the landlord, who owns that building, not have the right to do repair?

Bosch: He does have the right to do a repair Mr Kazubek, but he does not have the right to act in an antagonistic and threatening manner while he’s doing it. We never disputed John’s right to repair. What we disputed was John’s right to act in whatever manner he chooses.

Kazubek: Was there ever an order that would prevent John from entering  the property to do maintenance on your unit?

Bosch: Your asking if the LTB ever wrote an order banning a landlord from his own property?

Kazubek: Yes sir.

Bosch: Not to my knowledge.

Kazubek: Okay.

Bosch: there were no recognizances or peace bonds either. Against John. And that would be for the simple reason that there’s an exception in criminal law for landlords. I know this because a cop told me that.

Kazubek: Okay, madame adjudicator I’m going to ask that we take lunch now and after lunch I may have one or two more follow up questions on notices, I just want to make sure that I’ve gone over all my notices, all my notes.

Carey: Okay. So we’ll take a lunch break now, it’s twelve o’clock so let’s take the full hour and come back at, after one o’clock. Is that okay with everybody?

Kazubek: yes ma’am.

Carey: Mr Bosch?

Bosch: It is. I just have one quick question Ms Ball got in touch with me, she’s having technical difficulties. If ahe’s gonna be called as a witness, should she be part of, or watching these proceedings?

Carey: Um, no we usually exclude witnesses from the hearing room.

Bosch: Okay.

Carey: And she’s no longer a party to the application. Yeah.

2:57:34 HEARING RECESSED FOR LUNCH

Friday 18 August 2023 – filed Affidavit of Service for the paperwork I served John on August 15, 2023 with Small Claims Court at John Sopinka Courthouse.

At this point, collections should be easy. Pollington and Stamper have been ordered by the court to pay their rent to the court to satisfy John’s debt. Their rent is due on the first of the month, they have 10 days after the first to pay to the court. But nothing is ever simple with this bunch.

Monday 11 September 2023 – Attended John Sopinka courthouse to see if any payments had been made. None had. Small Claims Court staff were all off sick, so I was advised to return in two days to check again. At this point it appears that the Notices of Garnishment were ignored.

Tuesday 12 September 2023 – I attended John Sopinka Courthouse (Small Claims) in the morning. All of the Small Claims Court staff are still off sick.

Wednesday 13 September 2023 – 09:30 – I attended John Sopinka Courthouse in the morning. The small Claims Court window was open, and the clerk check for payments made on the Notices of Garnishment. She couldn’t find any, but advised me that Small Claims Court staff had been off for a week, she was the first one back, she had not yet had a chance to check through the mail for payments, and that it would take half an hour or more. I told her I would return the next day.

16:30 – Had a brief telephone conversation with Joseph Kazubek, John’s paralegal. As usual, Kazubek was talking over me and tried to bully me with statements that he would be telling the court I had refused resolution. Also, as usual, there were screaming children and noise in the background. For a brief time, I actually thought he’d be reasonable. However, I’ve paid more than $500 in court fees so far on this judgement, and that was necessary because John was evading his responsibilities. I’m perfectly willing to go the extra mile and schedule the Garnishment hearings and drag as many of John’s tenants/agents into court as it takes. Those fees are added to the debt and collectible and I’m not in the mood to give John any sort of break at this point.

Besides, it’s actually fun to {figuratively} kick Kazubek’s ass in court…