Residents of 1850 and 1840 Bloor Street - Capital Repairs and Rent Increase

@no off..e. Well, if you need a lawyer to defend your traffic ticket then you are right about the description of yourself on the matter. Then you should postpone your competency to judge or to label the Tenant’s defense against the AGI. If you continue to do so, you should deploy x, y, z arguments to give ground to your overarching and insolent statements. Now: - if the balconies were 40 old, how this would qualify by default a capital expenditure? Under subsection 126(8) of the RTA, a capital expenditure to replace a system or thing is not an eligible capital expenditure IF the system or thing that was replaced did not require major repair or replacement. - Where is the evidence of rust and bad shape of the old balconies? Any engineer report? Any picture or other form of documenting? Where is the evidence of safety concern about them? The Landlord presented NONE of these at the Hearing, only the biased testimony of a contractor for his client who can testify anything when he charges 1.6 mil. And a picture of work in progress, irrelevant however showing that the slabs actually were in good shape. - the Landlord dropped 6 items. So what? Out of generosity? No away, there were just fault targets to force the engulfing of the big fish (balconies) and cards in the negotiation game play. That became self evident when Tenants debunked their math and inquired every stone. - Landlord spent 1.6 mil. So what? For the care of Tenants and their balconies? In business, the thumb rule of investment is profit. “Business is not charity” is their core mantra. However, they must obey laws, rules, acts and regulations if they want to shut up even the “picky” Tenant. This is not public subscription. What if they would spend 7 million? Would they stretch that over 290 Tenants or less? Where is the equity here and why the Tenants should comply that without sharing the pie? Why the AGI and the order make injustices? - Because the AGI is based on fraudulent data and the orde

(1) To: no offense. Well, if you need a lawyer to defend your traffic ticket then you are right about the description of yourself on the matter. Then you should postpone your competency to judge or to label the Tenant’s defense against the AGI. If you continue to do so, you should deploy x, y, z arguments to give ground to your overarching and insolent statements. Now: - if the balconies were 40 old, how this would qualify by default a capital expenditure? Under subsection 126(8) of the RTA, a capital expenditure to replace a system or thing is not an eligible capital expenditure IF the system or thing that was replaced did not require major repair or replacement. - Where is the evidence of rust and bad shape of the old balconies? Any engineer report? Any picture or other form of documenting? Where is the evidence of safety concern about them? The Landlord presented NONE of these at the Hearing, only the biased testimony of a contractor for his client who can testify anything when he charges 1.6 mil. And a picture of work in progress, irrelevant however showing that the slabs actually were in good shape. - the Landlord dropped 6 items. So what? Out of generosity? No away, there were just fault targets to force the engulfing of the big fish (balconies) and cards in the negotiation game play. That became self evident when Tenants debunked their math and inquired every stone. - Landlord spent 1.6 mil. So what? For the care of Tenants and their balconies? In business, the thumb rule of investment is profit. “Business is not charity” is their core mantra. However, they must obey laws, rules, acts and regulations if they want to shut up even the “picky” Tenant. This is not public subscription. What if they would spend 7 million? Would they stretch that over 290 Tenants or less? Where is the equity here and why the Tenants should comply that without sharing the pie?

@no offense. Well, if you need a lawyer to defend your traffic ticket then you are right about the description of yourself on the matter. Then you should postpone your competency to judge or to label the Tenant’s defense against the AGI. If you continue to do so, you should deploy x, y, z arguments to give ground to your overarching and insolent statements. Now: - if the balconies were 40 old, how this would qualify by default a capital expenditure? Under subsection 126(8) of the RTA, a capital expenditure to replace a system or thing is not an eligible capital expenditure IF the system or thing that was replaced did not require major repair or replacement. - Where is the evidence of rust and bad shape of the old balconies? Any engineer report? Any picture or other form of documenting? Where is the evidence of safety concern about them? The Landlord presented NONE of these at the Hearing, only the biased testimony of a contractor for his client who can testify anything when he charges 1.6 mil. And a picture of work in progress, irrelevant however showing that the slabs actually were in good shape. - the Landlord dropped 6 items. So what? Out of generosity? No away, there were just fault targets to force the engulfing of the big fish (balconies) and cards in the negotiation game play. That became self evident when Tenants debunked their math and inquired every stone. - Landlord spent 1.6 mil. So what? For the care of Tenants and their balconies? In business, the thumb rule of investment is profit. “Business is not charity” is their core mantra. However, they must obey laws, rules, acts and regulations if they want to shut up even the “picky” Tenant. This is not public subscription. What if they would spend 7 million? Would they stretch that over 290 Tenants or less? Where is the equity here and why the Tenants should comply that without sharing the pie? Why the AGI and the order make injustices? - Because the AGI is based on fraudulent data and the ord

To: no offense. Well, if you need a lawyer to defend your traffic ticket then you are right about the description of yourself on the matter. Then you should postpone your competency to judge or to label the Tenant’s defense against the AGI. If you continue to do so, you should deploy x, y, z arguments to give ground to your overarching and insolent statements. Now: - if the balconies were 40 old, how this would qualify by default a capital expenditure? Under subsection 126(8) of the RTA, a capital expenditure to replace a system or thing is not an eligible capital expenditure IF the system or thing that was replaced did not require major repair or replacement. - Where is the evidence of rust and bad shape of the old balconies? Any engineer report? Any picture or other form of documenting? Where is the evidence of safety concern about them? The Landlord presented NONE of these at the Hearing, only the biased testimony of a contractor for his client who can testify anything when he charges 1.6 million. And a picture of work in progress, irrelevant however showing that the slabs actually were in good shape. - the Landlord dropped 6 items. So what? Out of generosity? No away, there were just fault targets to force the engulfing of the big fish (balconies) and cards in the negotiation game play. That became self evident when Tenants debunked their math and inquired every stone. - Landlord spent 1.6 million. So what? For the care of Tenants and their balconies? In business, the thumb rule of investment is profit. “Business is not charity” is their core mantra. However, they must obey laws, rules, acts and regulations if they want to shut up even the “picky” Tenant. This is not public subscription. What if they would spend 7 million? Would they stretch that over 290 Tenants or less? Where is the equity here and why the Tenants should comply that without sharing the pie? Why the AGI and the order make injustices? - Because the AGI is based on fraudulent data

(1) @no offense. Well, if you need a lawyer to defend your traffic ticket then you are right about the description of yourself on the matter. Then you should postpone your competency to judge or to label the Tenant’s defense against the AGI. If you continue to do so, you should deploy x, y, z arguments to give ground to your overarching and insolent statements. Now: - if the balconies were 40 old, how this would qualify by default a capital expenditure? Under subsection 126(8) of the RTA, a capital expenditure to replace a system or thing is not an eligible capital expenditure IF the system or thing that was replaced did not require major repair or replacement. - Where is the evidence of rust and bad shape of the old balconies? Any engineer report? Any picture or other form of documenting? Where is the evidence of safety concern about them? The Landlord presented NONE of these at the Hearing, only the biased testimony of a contractor for his client who can testify anything when he charges 1.6 million. And a picture of work in progress, irrelevant however showing that the slabs actually were in good shape. - the Landlord dropped 6 items. So what? Out of generosity? No away, there were just fault targets to force the engulfing of the big fish (balconies) and cards in the negotiation game play. That became self evident when Tenants debunked their math and inquired every stone. - Landlord spent 1.6 million. So what? For the care of Tenants and their balconies? In business, the thumb rule of investment is profit. “Business is not charity” is their core mantra. However, they must obey laws, rules, acts and regulations if they want to shut up even the “picky” Tenant. This is not public subscription. What if they would spend 7 million? Would they stretch that over 290 Tenants or less? Where is the equity here and why the Tenants should comply that without sharing the pie?

@no offense. Well, if you need a lawyer to defend your traffic ticket then you are right about the description of yourself on the matter. Then you should postpone your competency to judge or to label the Tenant’s defense against the AGI. If you continue to do so, you should deploy x, y, z arguments to give ground to your overarching and insolent statements. Now: - if the balconies were 40 old, how this would qualify by default a capital expenditure? Under subsection 126(8) of the RTA, a capital expenditure to replace a system or thing is not an eligible capital expenditure IF the system or thing that was replaced did not require major repair or replacement. - Where is the evidence of rust and bad shape of the old balconies? Any engineer report? Any picture or other form of documenting? Where is the evidence of safety concern about them? The Landlord presented NONE of these at the Hearing, only the biased testimony of a contractor for his client who can testify anything when he charges 1.6 million. And a picture of work in progress, irrelevant however showing that the slabs actually were in good shape. - the Landlord dropped 6 items. So what? Out of generosity? No away, there were just fault targets to force the engulfing of the big fish (balconies) and cards in the negotiation game play. That became self evident when Tenants debunked their math and inquired every stone. - Landlord spent 1.6 million. So what? For the care of Tenants and their balconies? In business, the thumb rule of investment is profit. “Business is not charity” is their core mantra. However, they must obey laws, rules, acts and regulations if they want to shut up even the “picky” Tenant. This is not public subscription. What if they would spend 7 million? Would they stretch that over 290 Tenants or less? Where is the equity here and why the Tenants should comply that without sharing the pie? Why the AGI and the order make injustice? - Because the AGI is based on fraudulent data and th

"..it would be fair at least to share the ownership with the Tenants. " With such mentality, no wonder we lost in court...

(8) Landlords can cover their s...y property in gold to mask their incompetency and greediness and then they can pass the cost over their Tenants with the generous support of LTB. It doesn’t mean this is acceptable. It is their choice of taste and money, not of the Tenants. Tenants give them big money anyway. If Landlords were so desperate to augment their profits by any mean, it would be fair at least to share the ownership with the Tenants.

(7) This is the “social justice” employed by the LTB. We are not the only one discovering this biased way of handling. The Internet is full with similar large-scale mischiefs over the Tenants. The law exhibits holes on the matter and the Tenants must raise the flag! Pray nobody would fall from these “wondrous” glasses (it wouldn’t be for the first time in the GTA anyway as they were subject of regulations review in Toronto over the last years) and pray for the Tenants, particularly seniors and social cases to not lose their homes due to high rates rent. No money will bring back such people.

(6) Then, all a Landlord needs to go successful with and AGI is to do zero repairs during the useful life of various building components (lots of years and subjective account anyway), to call after a contractor (usually a family member or friend, “bidding” a service? what a funny word is that?) pretending to issue multiple quotes never presented in Court, attaching confusing bills, though pretty detailed on they shared it upon request a drawer version ignored by the Adjudicator, and then bank statements showing big money spent on Visas while benefiting the merit points (pretty high returns). Then, how blind a Tenant or an Adjudicator must go by ignoring the real intentions of the Ranee stated on their outdoor signage “1840-1850 Bloor St. E. LUXURY RENOVATED SUITES”. None of the Landlords in our area and even farther dared to display such an insolent and ungrounded claim on their outdoor advertising.

Hello, I went several times in court to defend myself against traffic tickets, believing I am a "smart ass" I lost most of the time.... Now: -the balconies were 40 years old, rusty and in bad shape -the landlord paid 1.6 mil to replace them -this is "capital expenditure" -the landlord dropped the other things claimed Where exactly do you see "injustice"??? -because they painted the slab??? -because they used tinted glass instead of transparent???? Now, be honest and at least acknowledge that that our defense was childish. Being a brilliant engineer, will not make you a good lawyer and the other way around....

(5) To popescu, joke, meagain or whatever alias: Or there is no relevancy that on 1840 the claimed balcony was around 11,000 dollars higher then on 1840 and Tenants request split cost per building. This is childish to request!

(4) To popescu, joke, meagain or whatever alias: It doesn’t matter either that prior work on balconies 1st floor is not eligible (the railings were renovated and new slabs reconstructed therefore they acquired by this a new life span ignored by the Adjudicator) or the fact that Tenants from 1840 don’t see a reason why they should share the costs done only for 1850 and vice versa.

(3) To popescu, joke, meagain or whatever alias: Furthermore, it doesn’t matter when the Landlord’s legal representative “professionally” messes names and addresses in the AGI or “innocently” doesn’t feel obliged to declare all the rent income and the vacancies requested by LTB’s regulations up to the Hearing (though the inconsistency was communicated to the Landlord last October and assured “to take care of it if necessary”), this is allowed to serve stretching up the rent increase above guidelines for its own benefit.

(2) To popescu, joke, meagain or whatever alias: Given the numerous intentional wrong numbers and input in the AGI brilliantly performed by their certified paralegal, this should have been enough to stop its course from infancy. If this were to be citizenship, passport or professional order application this would have been definitely rejected. Even the Adjudicator recognized in the order that “Some of the issues they (Tenants) raised have resulted in a decrease in the amount of the rent increase that would otherwise have been ordered.” Very nice, thank you LTB for patting the Landlord’s money whose care is solely the thriving of the Tenants! Money of the Tenants should be given away, unquestioning, in charity enthusiasm toward the “poor” Landlord. So for the LTB, it doesn’t matter if a Landlord cannot justify an investment of 1.6 million dollars by displaying upon request an engineering report (as the smarty Adjudicator put it “in general this is not a requirement of the law”). It doesn’t matter too when the Landlord cannot provide a building permit on a general safety work or a single picture/report of the pretended prior concrete fall or any issue on the balconies. That is self-evident for the Landlord and the LTB as the oxygen itself, enough to smell it, not necessarily to view it. This is so because in his great wisdom the LTB operates with the notion of “balance of probabilities”, much different than the standard of proof in criminal matters, which is “beyond a reasonable doubt”, say they.

(1) To popescu, joke, meagain or whatever alias: joke: "hard work is never appreciated, only the result matters." “A brave man acknowledges the strength of others.” I suspect you don’t want to hear Machiavelli’s quotes. If I were you, here and now I would stop playing the devil’s advocate and keep this for another time, we heard enough like this on this stage. You don’t know what you are talking about. While many Tenants decided to involve not and invest not a cent in the need for legal aid or other tasks, yet they have commented as infallible judges and have expected at highest from the “hard workers” you so easily seem to despise here with unsalted jokes, and further have observed from their comfortable coaches how the latter wore on their shoulders the challenge and the burden of it for the benefit of all. Thank you for your kind appreciation! Despite your compliment, the Tenant’s defence was quite strong, given the circumstances. The Adjudicator acknowledged it at the Hearing and in the order acknowledged it. If you are really honest, please revisit the link above about the Tenant’s defence. We had a professional engineer involved, top-notch data analyst and programmer and several free legal aid lines were consulted.

"The group turned every stone of the application ..." When a woman is pregnant, everyone touches her belly and says, "well done", but nobody touches the man's dick and says "good job". Moral of the story: "hard work is never appreciated, only the result matters."

"Unfortunately, big money talks loudly in the current system and as it is designed now, Tenants are forced to postpone any hope for justice. " The adjudicator explained in the letter EACH AND EVERY conclusion he has reached, and everything seems logical . After reading the whole letter I can clearly see that our defense was childish. The group worked hard, no doubt, but having somebody specialized in this issue (aka "legal representative") would had helped better Anyway, 3.76% is better than 4.58%

@popescu, you misinterpret that information. Ranee never proposed 3.59%, the last one was 3.75% and they wanted to hear a counter offer while they were already delaying in providing engineering reports (promised yet non existent) requested by the Tenant's group of initiative along with a signature for accessing the building permit from the City (this ultimately was given before the Hearing but it didn't came on time). A big challenge with them in order to have a settlement was they stayed firm on high numbers since October as they wanted 100% agreement from all affected Tenants which turned to be an unrealistic task. Only when the Tenant's initiative group debunked their math and other flaws in the AGI, they were willing to lower a bit the number hoping we bite anything they throw until many Tenants realized it would be worth going further with the legal arbitrage of the LTB. The group turned every stone of the application at the Hearing and we should pay respect to it for that huge effort. Unfortunately, big money talks loudly in the current system and as it is designed now, Tenants are forced to postpone any hope for justice.

So, the answer came: 3.76% . Good, but less that whatever Ilana proposed 3.59%.