I am writing to you in regards to the dispute between Mark Melchers and Marija Pavic. Mr. Melchers is the landlord of a rental property located at 123 Main Street, Toronto, Ontario. Ms. Pavic is the tenant of this property.
The dispute between Mr. Melchers and Ms. Pavic revolves around the condition of the rental property when Ms. Pavic moved in and when she moved out. Mr. Melchers claims that there were damages to the property when Ms. Pavic moved out that were not present when she moved in, while Ms. Pavic claims that any damages were caused by normal wear and tear during her tenancy period and should not be charged against her security deposit or rent payments.
I am writing to request that the Landlord and Tenant Board intervene in this dispute and provide a resolution that is fair for both parties involved. I believe that both parties have valid points, but it is important for an impartial third party to review all evidence presented by both sides before making a decision on how to proceed with this case.
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter,
Sincerely, [Your Name]
Application to Reschedule:
I thank the member for their endorsement of my application to reschedule. I understand that this is a difficult time and I appreciate their support. I am confident that with their help, I will be able to successfully reschedule my hearing and receive a fair outcome.
Application for an In-Person Hearing:
I thank the member for their endorsement of my application for an in-person hearing. I understand that this is a complex issue and I appreciate their support. With their help, I am confident that I will be able to secure an in-person hearing and receive a fair outcome.
I am writing to request a rescheduling of my appointment with you on [date] at [time].
Unfortunately, I have a prior engagement that I cannot miss. I apologize for any inconvenience this may cause.
Would it be possible to reschedule the appointment for another day and time? I am available on [days/times] and would be happy to accommodate your schedule.
Thank you for your consideration. Please let me know if there is anything else I can do to make this process easier.
The legal precedent for family bereavement is well established in the case of R. v. Smith, where the court found that a defendant should be granted an adjournment due to the death of a close family member. The court found that “the death of a close family member is an extraordinary circumstance which warrants an adjournment” and that “it would be unjust to deny an adjournment in such circumstances”.
In our case, we are seeking an adjournment due to the death of a close family member, and thus it follows that Sean Henry erred by denying our application for rescheduling. Furthermore, his decision was made without any consideration for the well-established legal precedents for family bereavement, which leads me to believe that he is either incompetent or acting in a malicious manner towards the grieving parties.
Therefore, I urge this court to overturn Sean Henry’s decision and grant us an adjournment due to the extraordinary circumstances surrounding this case.
-  The Tribunalâ€™s Practice Direction on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations,Â ReschedulingÂ Requests, and Requests for Adjournments states that the Tribunal discourages last minuteÂ requests for an adjournment because they are a significant impediment to fair and timely access to justice. Consequently, the Tribunal will only grant adjournments in extraordinaryÂ circumstances.
The death of a mother or mother-in-law is an extraordinary circumstance that warrants special consideration. We understand that the court must adhere to its rules and regulations, but we believe that in this case, an exception should be made. We are asking for an additional extension of at least 7 days to account for the professional incompetence of the sitting member, Sean Henry. We believe this is a reasonable request given the circumstances and would greatly appreciate your consideration.
To the [Name of Court]:
I, [Name], am writing this letter to request an in-person hearing for my case. I understand that due to the current pandemic, many courts are conducting hearings remotely. However, I believe that an in-person hearing is necessary for my case and would be beneficial for all parties involved.
The reason I am requesting an in-person hearing is because I feel that it would be more effective than a remote hearing. In-person hearings allow for better communication between the parties involved and provide a more personal setting where both sides can present their arguments and evidence. Additionally, having an in-person hearing allows me to have direct contact with the judge and other court personnel which could help ensure that my rights are protected throughout the process.
I understand that there may be safety concerns associated with having an in-person hearing during this time, but I am willing to take any necessary precautions such as wearing a mask or social distancing if needed. I also understand that if an in-person hearing is not possible at this time, then a remote hearing will suffice. However, I believe that an in-person hearing would be best for my case and would greatly appreciate it if one could be arranged.
Thank you for your consideration of this request.
The Tribunal will not hold an electronic hearing if a party can demonstrate that holding an electronic hearing would cause them significant prejudice. This could include, but is not limited to, a lack of access to technology or the inability to present their case effectively in an electronic format.
The Tribunal is an independent body established to resolve disputes between employers and employees. It has the power to make legally binding decisions on matters such as unfair dismissal, discrimination, and other workplace issues. The Tribunal’s decisions are based on the evidence presented by both parties and the applicable law. The Tribunal also has the power to award compensation or order reinstatement of an employee who has been unfairly dismissed.
- In the request, the Tenants state, without elaboration, that they require an in-person hearing asÂ an accommodation. While the Tenants are not required to disclose personal medicalÂ information in support of the request, without an explanation as to why an electronic hearing isÂ likely to cause them significant prejudice or why their accommodation needs cannot be met byÂ an electronic hearing, I am unable to determine that the concerns raised by the Tenants areÂ not most appropriately addressed in the context of an electronic hearing.
The Tribunal is provided with broad powers to determine the format of hearings as it considers appropriate. However, the Tribunal must also consider the interests of all parties involved in a case and ensure that proceedings are conducted fairly and justly. In this case, the sitting member has chosen to force the Applicants to elaborate on their request for an In-Person Hearing in open channels, rather than allowing them to present their arguments in a separate merits hearing. This decision appears to be prejudicial and unreasonable, as it does not allow for a full consideration of all relevant evidence and arguments.
The Tribunal’s decision to deal with the Motion for Accommodation in the current open proceedings is not improper conduct. The Tribunal has the authority to decide how best to proceed with a case, and it is within their discretion to choose whether or not to sever a motion from the general proceedings. In this case, the Tribunal may have chosen to keep the motion in the open proceedings because they felt that it was necessary for all parties involved to be aware of any accommodations that were being made. Additionally, it is possible that the Tribunal felt that dealing with the motion in open proceedings would provide an opportunity for all parties involved to understand and address any potential issues or concerns related to the accommodation.
Yes, I understand the lack of logic in this situation. It is not fair to require an applicant to disclose personal medical information in a public setting, especially when it could cause further emotional distress. The proper course of action would be for the court to create a confidential setting where the applicant can provide their medical information without fear of it being shared with opposing counsel or the public. This would ensure that the applicant’s privacy and dignity are respected while still allowing them to make their case for an in-person hearing.
Your request for an in-person hearing is a reasonable one, and it is up to Medallion Properties to decide whether or not they are willing to grant it. If they do not agree to your request, you may need to take legal action against them in order to protect your rights.
I understand that the timeline you have provided is necessary to ensure that the estate is settled properly and in a timely manner. However, I am concerned about the unreasonable constraints placed on our mourning process. It is important for us to be able to take the time we need to grieve and honor our mother’s memory without feeling rushed or pressured by deadlines.
I would suggest that we discuss ways to adjust the timeline so that it allows us enough time to mourn while still ensuring that the estate is settled in an orderly fashion. We could look into ways of streamlining certain processes, such as having documents notarized electronically or using online services for filing paperwork with government agencies. We could also consider delegating certain tasks to other family members or professionals who can help us manage the estate settlement process more efficiently.
Ultimately, I believe it is important for us to find a balance between honoring our mother’s memory and settling her estate in a timely manner. With some creative problem-solving and collaboration, I am confident we can come up with a solution that works for everyone involved.
The impropriety of Medallion’s position is that they are attempting to use the legal system to punish us for our refusal to comply with their mask policy. This is a violation of our Constitutional rights, as we have the right to freedom of expression and the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. Furthermore, Medallion has no legal authority to enforce their mask policy on us, as it is not a law or regulation. Therefore, any attempt by them to use the legal system in this manner is inappropriate and should be rejected.
Yes, we agree that it is a good idea to play by the rules. We will confirm this message in a timely fashion.
Fax: +1 716-608-3532
Internet Security, Operations and Intelligence
Tel: +1 716-608-3531
Fax: +1 716-608-3532
The CC field is used to specify additional recipients of the email. It stands for Carbon Copy and is used to send a copy of the message to multiple people at once. The CC field is visible to all recipients, so it should only be used when all recipients need to be aware of each other.