Tenant Complaint re Melchers Conduct

Dear Attorney for Medallion Corporation,

I am writing to express my concern about the policy recently implemented by your client, Medallion Corporation, requiring all tenants to wear a mask or acceptable face covering such as a muzzle or plastic bag while in common areas of the building. As a tenant of this building, I feel that this policy is unreasonable and violates my rights as a tenant.

I understand that wearing masks is important for public health and safety during the current pandemic. However, I do not believe that it is necessary or appropriate to require all tenants to wear masks in common areas of the building when they are not interacting with other people. Furthermore, I believe that this policy unfairly discriminates against those who cannot or choose not to wear masks due to ideological or other exemptions.

I urge you and your client to reconsider this policy and find an alternative solution that does not infringe on the rights of tenants. Thank you for your time and consideration.


Thank you for your email. We have received it and will respond as soon as possible.

Thank you for your inquiry about our services. We are pleased to provide you with the information you requested.

At ABC Company, we offer a wide range of services to meet all of your needs. Our services include web design and development, graphic design, digital marketing, SEO optimization, content creation, and more. We also offer custom solutions tailored to your specific requirements.

We have a team of experienced professionals who are dedicated to providing the highest quality work and customer service. Our goal is to ensure that you are completely satisfied with the results of our work.

If you would like more information about our services or if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. We look forward to hearing from you soon.

ABC Company

I am aware of the law and I understand that you are within your rights to serve me with a Notice of Eviction. However, I would like to point out that the notice was served after 5:00PM on a Friday, which is not in accordance with the Residential Tenancies Act (ON). According to this act, notices must be served between 8:00AM and 8:00PM on any day other than a Sunday or holiday. Therefore, I believe that this notice is invalid and should not be enforced.

Furthermore, I would like to point out that the notice does not provide me with enough time to find alternative housing arrangements. As such, I request an extension of at least two weeks so that I can make suitable arrangements for myself and my family.

I look forward to hearing from you soon regarding this matter.

[Your Name]

However, if this is the first N5 Notice to End your Tenancy in the past 6 months, then the clock would start counting on Monday December 14th, 2020 and 60 days minus weekends and statutory holidays (see Interpretation Act 29(1) ) which would technically elapse on February 11th 2021, so the earliest date of eviction would be February 12th, 2021.

I understand that your client does not recognize Christmas or New Years Day as holidays, and that they have posted notice signifying their observance of other dates as holidays. In order to ensure compliance with applicable laws, I recommend that your client review the relevant state and federal laws regarding religious discrimination in the workplace. Depending on the jurisdiction, employers may be required to provide reasonable accommodations for employees who observe different religious holidays than those recognized by the employer. Additionally, employers should ensure that any notices posted regarding holiday observances do not discriminate against any particular religion or group of religions.

  • December 24th, Thursday    (Half-Day)
  • December 25th, Friday
  • December 28th, Monday
  • December 31st, Thursday    (Half-Day)
  • January 1st, Friday

No, that is not correct. Your client has the right to pursue their legal rights and remedies under the Residential Tenancies Act. However, they must do so in a manner that is consistent with the law and does not involve any malicious or vexatious conduct. If your client is found to have acted in such a way, they may be subject to fines or other penalties from the Ontario Law Society or Ontario Bar Association.

The point is that your client’s office and staff are discriminating against me on the basis of my protected rights, and this is illegal. As such, I am entitled to seek redress for this discrimination in a court of law.

It is possible that your client does not understand the legal implications of the Reopening Ontario Act legislation and applicable regulations. It is important to ensure that your client understands the legal basis for your client’s position and how it relates to my stated exemption from the Mandatory Mask Regulation. If your client continues to refuse to acknowledge my stated exemption, it may be necessary to seek further legal advice or take other action in order to protect my rights.

  • 2020Dec07 at 1755EST re ‘Mandatory Mask Law Noncompliance: Exemptions’
  • 2020Oct30 at 0401EDT re ‘Re: Complaint (Non-Wearing Of Mask in Management Office) / 2 of 2’
  • 2020Oct29 at 2307EDT re ‘Re: Complaint (Non-Wearing Of Mask in Management Office) / 1 of 2’

I have also discussed with the desk jockey staff that they should be aware of the potential for a customer to become agitated or even violent if they are denied service due to not wearing a mask. I have suggested that they should be prepared to de-escalate any situation and call security or the police if necessary.

Finally, I have discussed with the desk jockey staff that it is important to remain professional and courteous when dealing with customers who may not be wearing masks. They should explain why masks are required in accordance with policy and offer reasonable accommodations such as providing a mask or allowing them to purchase one from the store.

Your client has been informed of the fact that there are exemptions to the Mandatory Mask bylaw, and the Mandatory Mask caveat under the regulations to the Reopening Ontario Act. Your client has also been informed that these exemptions include those who cannot wear a mask due to medical reasons, or those who choose not to wear a mask for ideological reasons.

Your client has failed to comply with these regulations and has instead chosen to enforce its own policy which does not take into account any of the exemptions mentioned above. As such, I believe that your license should be revoked as your client is in violation of the law.

“The Respondent has acted in a manner that is not only unlawful, but also unethical.”

It’s ironic that your client is accusing me of being unethical when they themselves are the ones who have distorted reality to suit their own agenda. It’s clear that they have no regard for the truth and are willing to do whatever it takes to get what they want. This kind of behavior is unacceptable and should not be tolerated.

The tenant should be informed that their behavior is in violation of the lease agreement, the Residential Tenancies Act, the Fire Code, the Occupational Health and Safety Act, and Medallion Corporation’s Workplace Harassment and Violence policy. The tenant should be reminded that any further violations of these policies may result in eviction or other legal action.

The best course of action is to cease any and all involvement with Medallion Corporation. You should also contact the Respondents and apologize for your actions, as well as offering to make amends in any way possible. Additionally, you should contact the relevant authorities (such as the Human Rights Commission) and inform them of what has happened. Finally, you should seek legal advice on how to proceed in order to ensure that your rights are protected.

Thank you for your understanding.

[Your Name]


  • Ontario Law Society, Complaints & Compliance
  • Ontario Bar Association, Executive Director & General Counsel, Elizabeth A. Hall
  • Rocco Galati, Constitutional Rights Centre Inc
  • Denis Rancourt, Ontario Civil Liberties Association


  • Limited-Access-to-Medallion.jpg
  • 2020Dec07 Mandatory Mask Law Noncompliance Exemptions.pdf
  • 2020oct29 Complaint NonWearing Of Mask in Management Office — 1 of 2.pdf
  • 2020Oct30 Complaint NonWearing Of Mask in Management Office — 2 of 2.pdf

The best way to prevent the spread of COVID-19 is to practice social distancing, wear a face covering when in public, wash your hands often with soap and water for at least 20 seconds, avoid touching your face, cover your mouth and nose when you cough or sneeze, clean and disinfect frequently touched surfaces daily, and stay home if you are feeling sick.

Reference for disciplinary purposes against Mr Melchers:

Yes, you can stop multiple LTB applications by a “vexatious” tenant. The Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) has the authority to refuse to accept applications from tenants who are deemed to be “vexatious”. This means that if a tenant has made multiple applications that are frivolous or without merit, the LTB may refuse to accept any further applications from them.

So what can a Landlord do to limit legal costs, wasted time, and  uncertainty due to multiple applications filed by a vexatious tenant?  A solution lies in Rule A8 of the Social Justice Tribunals of  Ontario’s Common Rules, which form part of the LTB’s Rules of Practice  (the “Rules“).  Rule A8 deals with “abuse of processâ€. Rule A8.2, in particular,  allows the LTB to declare a tenant to be a “vexatious litigantâ€;  dismiss the application as an abuse of process; and, require the  vexatious litigant to obtain special permission from the LTB before  s/he can file any new Application, or take any further steps in an  outstanding application.