Wednesday October 4, 2023 – I attended John Sopinka Courthouse in Hamilton at 09:15 for the Examination Hearing. By 10:20 am John Cerino hadn’t show up. I asked the judge for a contempt hearing, and the judge endorsed the order. The judge was mildly amused that I had served John the Notice “At his favorite hangout, McDonald’s” (that’s what I put on the Affidavit of Service).
Before I left the Courthouse I checked with the Small Claims staff on the first floor. It will take approximately two weeks to schedule the contempt hearing.
Thursday October 5, 2023 – I emailed Kazubek:
| Peter Bosch <pbosch468@gmail.com> | 12:15 PM (2 hours ago) |  | |
| to Joseph | |||
Hello Mr Kazubek
1. I am having difficulties uploading material to TOP (videos, at least) and it seems unlikely that I will be able to correct the problem in time for the Oct 17, 2023 deadline for disclosure. I would like to make arrangements to drop off a flash drive to your office, or make other arrangements.
2. Reviewing the cross examination from the last hearing day, it has become apparent that I will have to cross examine John and/or Agostino on every Notice of Entry. It would save hearing time if you would examine the notices of entry and we come to some agreement of fact (on whether the notices are valid under the RTA, conform with interim orders, or conform with case law) on some or all of them ahead of time. I haven’t been able to find a single one, but perhaps you can.
All of the notices of Entry will be disclosed as a single multi-page document, in chronological order, with the interim orders in chronological order. That may assist you in determining whether a particular Notice conforms to a particular Interim Order.
A draft copy of the transcript of your cross examination can be found on my blog here: Chapter 100 – May 28, 2023-September 12, 2023 – Hamilton Slumlords (hamilton-slumlords.com). A pdf final version will be disclosed with commentary added.
3. I intend to bring a motion that the hearings be conducted in person, as a block. The motion will be based in part on the continuing coaching that went on during my cross examination in the T6 hearing. Do you oppose such a motion?
4. Please provide an address for personal service for John Cerino, and Agostino Cerino.
5. Please acknowledge this email. I do not consider this or any reply to be privileged information.
P. Bosch
The replies follow:
| Joseph Kazubek | 12:20 PM (2 hours ago) | | |
| to me | |||
Good afternoon,
Please email us your additional disclosure as per the endorsement.
Best regards,
Heather *Clerk*
Joseph H. Kazubek
Legal Practitioner , Notary Public
JK/hd
Kazubek Legal (Formally JK Legal)
PH (905) 962-1169
I guess Heather missed the point (or any of the four points. Communication with Kazubek (and lately his staff) is onerous, annoying and frequently devolves into a pissing contest. This time was one of the latter.) Or maybe she isn’t aware that Kazubek has had a lot of trouble receiving large attachments in the past, and needed to consult with his nibs on the other three points. Who knows? Either way, I replied:
| Peter Bosch <pbosch468@gmail.com> | 12:43 PM (2 hours ago) | | |
| to Joseph | |||
Mr Kazubek;
Some of the additional disclosure is videos. Those can’t be emailed, or at least not to your office, apparently. At least I haven’t had any luck in the past.
P. Bosch
289-698-6779
PS: Is there no response to the other points in my email?
Peter
| Joseph Kazubek | 1:17 PM (1 hour ago) | | |
| to me | |||
Good afternoon,
After reviewing your email, you make mention that you have posted the transcript online.
Can you confirm that ?
Joseph H. Kazubek
Legal practitioner, Notary Public
JK/
This smells like another of Kazubek’s setups for gaslighting. He’d like me to believe that I’ve made some legal mistake that has dire consequences, like the time he threatened to serve Marie and I with a second Notice of Examination Hearing and move to dismiss the T6 AND T2 Applications in the next day’s virtual LTB merits hearing, which was a T6 hearing whose presiding member had no authority over the T2 applications. He was basing his bullying on his entirely mistaken notion that I’d made an unauthorized recording of a case management hearing, and wouldn’t shut up long enough to listen to why he was wrong. More details in a future post {Spoiler: He wasn’t stupid enough to actually follow through with the Notice of Examination Hearings. Half an hour’s research told me that a Notice for Examination Hearing requires personal service. Besides, this was the night before a hearing. He didn’t have enough time to get the Notice of Examination Hearing certified by the clerk of Small Claims Court. He was gaslighting and did manage to waste a half hour of my time, the night before a hearing. He did follow through on the motion to dismiss, but I’ll fill in details layer. It’s complicated, but it boils down to catching Kazubek in a barefaced lie, which he made in emailed submissions to Member Neumann. His motion went nowhere}. He’s tried this particular kind of gaslighting many times. but I’d checked, there’s nothing wrong with posting transcripts.
| Peter Bosch <pbosch468@gmail.com> | 1:37 PM (1 hour ago) | | |
| to Joseph | |||
Read the email, Mr Kazubek.
Is there any response to the other points?
Peter
PS: Would you kindly fuck off with the gaslighting? There’s nothing wrong with posting partial transcripts of a proceeding, if indeed that’s what I have done.
Peter
| Joseph Kazubek | 3:08 PM (4 minutes ago) | | |
| to me | |||
Mr Bosch,
I’m not entertaining this behaviour, please email your files as a Google drive to this email address. I will not accept service for anything else, nor do I have an address for my client for you.
I wish you a happy holidays.
| Peter Bosch | 3:12 PM (0 minutes ago) | | |
| to Joseph | |||
Okay Kazubek. I’m starting to think bluster and gaslighting is all you have. You spent the morning of the last hearing day establishing that your client has failed to fulfil his positive obligation to know the law. I remind you that you have that same obligation.
P. Bosch
289-698-6779
| Peter Bosch <pbosch468@gmail.com> | 5:28 PM (3 hours ago) | | |
| to Joseph | |||
PS: Any reply on point #3?
P.Bosch
You know the number by now
| Joseph Kazubek | 5:31 PM (3 hours ago) | |
| I’m opposed to it. | ||
| Peter Bosch <pbosch468@gmail.com> | 8:15 PM (45 minutes ago) | | |
| to Joseph | |||
Of course you are, Mr Kazubek, of course you are.
P. Bosch
PS: “Ethics is knowing the difference between what you have a right to do and what is right to do.” Potter Stewart
You’ve misattributed this quote. It’s much older than that.
| Joseph Kazubek | 8:18 PM (43 minutes ago) | | |
| to me | |||
Bosch, if you’re going to continue this harassing communication, we will be force to file a motion to only communicate though the portal.
| Peter Bosch <pbosch468@gmail.com> | 8:22 PM (39 minutes ago) | | |
| to Joseph | |||
Stick it in your ear Kazubek. That’s a transparent attempt to prejudice my interests by attempting to restrict communication to a means you know I cannot use reliably.
P. Bosch
| Joseph Kazubek | 8:27 PM (35 minutes ago) | |
| Have a great thanksgiving. | ||
| Peter Bosch <pbosch468@gmail.com> | 8:34 PM (29 minutes ago) | | |
| to Joseph | |||
You too Kazubek. Watch out for stobor.
P. Bosch
PS: Your website, www.kazubeklegal.ca is down. A couple of blog readers mentioned it. You may wish to look into that.
Hamilton Slumlords 