The Window Stalkers or Stalkers- Part III

I wonder what would have happened
if I had not contacted NorthStar
and Canada Post, if the outcome
would have been different. Would
my registered mail and Xpress post
to NorthStar still appear to be
missing?

Now on to Ducana Joe. After I send
my letters, I wonder if Joe will
return my cheques. Oh by the way,
I indicated incorrectly in Part II
that Joe received my registered
letter on September 4th, 2008. He
received my letter on Wednesday
September 3rd, 2008.

The following day, September 4th,
I'm at work, on day shift, I'm on
my job, and a man walks by (lots of
men walk by my job) but this man walks
a few feet a head and turns to glance
back at me. I was shocked I swear
it was Ducana Joe looking back at me.
He had a clip board in his hand and he
looked at me and non chalantly turned
away and continued on to wherever
he was going. I watched him disappear.
I thought no way it can't be him, but
it looked like him. Whether it was
Ducana Joe or not (and I suspect it
was him, I'm sure Ducana Windows
does commercial work too), seeing him
made think that I wasn't getting
the cheques back. On that day
I put stop payments on the
cheques.

Joe choosing to ignore my letter
canceling my order, called numerous
times and left a number of messages
which I ignored, hoping he would get
the message. He didn't.

On Saturday September 06, 2008, Joe
shows up at my house. I ignore his
knock at my door. Later that day, I
head out. I notice Joe has left a copy of
my faxed August 29th, cancellation letter
taped to my storm door. On the letter he
writes that he can't cancel my order
without my signature. He ask that I
call him, for the zillionth time. If
he needs my signature, then it meant
I had to see him. I did't want to see
Ducana Joe.

I fax a letter addressed to Joe dated
September 8th, directing him to drop
off the documents he needed signed.
He didn't drop anything off. So I take
the Ducana invoice and the invoice
for the installation company and I write
on both, that the order was canceled
August 29th, 2008 by customer. I endorse
with my signature. I fax Ducana's invoice
to Ducana and fax the window installation
company's invoice to it. That should
end it, right. Nope. After I fax the
invoices, Joe calls again. I had enough.
I contact Ducana's head office.

I tell the women I speak to at Ducana's
head office, that I canceled an order for
windows and the salesperson keeps calling
me. She asks my name. I tell her and I
listen as her tone drops - like "oh it's you,"
That kind of tone. I immediately got the
impression she knew my name. She said
that she knew I canceled but she never
mentions my letter as the source of the
cancellation. She mentions my stop payment
as what indicated to Ducana that I canceled.
My cheques were never returned as I requested
in my August 29th, letter.

She asked me who the salesperson was. I tell her
Ducana Joe's name. I tell her he won't stop
calling me. She then asked the strangest
question. At least to me it was strange. She asked,
"Why would he do that?" Does it matter? I responded,
" I don't know. He just won't accept the cancellation."


I then go on to tell her that my fax machine
records all incoming calls, and I have a record
of all Joe's telephone calls. She said she would
send hin a voice mail and tell him to stop.

Shortly after speaking with the women from
Ducana, my telephone rings. I check my caller
I.D. There's no name appearing on the screen
and the telephone number I don't recognize.
I wonder if it's Joe using a different number.
I decide to call the number. It turns out not
to be Joe but the installer.

The installer after receiving the invoice I
faxed earlier called to find out what was
going on. He asks why I canceled. This question
annoyed me. I think I was just annoyed with the
whole matter. I tell him, it doesn't matter why
I canceled, I canceled. He said he spoke to Joe
and Joe told him that he wasn't certain that I had
canceled. I don't know when the installer
spoke to Ducana Joe. I assumed he spoke to
Joe after he received my fax.

The installer told me he was at my house to
take measurements of my windows. I told
the installer that Joe should not have sent
him to my house to take measurements on my
windows when he knew I canceled the order.
The installer apologized. I accepted his
apology because I knew he didn't know I
canceled the order when he came on my property
to measure my windows. So while I'm at work Joe
has the installation company on my property.
The nerve of this stranger.

I wonder why Joe would have the installer take
measurements of my windows knowing that I canceled
the order. Did he intend to have the windows installed
anyway? Would I come home from work one day to find
that new windows had been installed in my home.
The installer would need to get in the house, right?
Joe would need to provide the installer with a key
to my house, which means someone would have to provide
Joe with a key to my house. It sure wouldn't be me.

I make a mental list of who had the keys to my house
before I me. The previous owner (next door
neighbour) and the law firms involved in the sales
transaction. Maybe no one had another set of
keys to my house, but on the other hand Joe's
behaviour made me not so certain of that. I've
since changed the locks on my house.

Since I spoke to the women at Ducana's head office
I have not received another telephone call from
Joe.

By the way, I did have an energy assessment done.

To see letters sent and other info.

http://picasaweb.google.ca/lh/view?uname=scwmark&q=THE%20WINDOW%20STALKER&isOwner=true#

The Window Stalker or Stalkers - Part ll

Joe's business card doesn't show
a fax number. I find the head office
fax number on the Ducana website. I
fax a cancellation letter to Ducana's
head office. To be certain Joe know's
of the cancellation, I send a copy
of the letter registered mail on Saturday
August 30th, 2008 to Ducana's Chatham
store address. The Chatham address is the
address on Joe's business card. Now how
I ended up with a Ducana rep from Chatham,
I don't know. The Chatham number is
not in the yellow pages. I'm thinking
maybe when I initially contacted
Ducana I was asked for my address. I recall
the person I intially spoke to - not Joe,
saying that they've replaced windows on my
street. So I must of told the person my
address. But that doesn't explain why Joe,
does it? Or maybe it does.

I decided to take a closer look at the
papers that the lawyers assistant gave
me with the keys to the house on August
15th, 2008, the closing date.
They were photocopy receipts
for windows that the previous owner
had replaced by Northstar Windows. What
I had not noticed before was there was
a warranty transfer for the windows that
had to be mailed to Northstar by
the second owner within 30 days of taking
possession of the home. So I immediately
wrote a cheque for the required $100.00
administration fee, put the certificate
in envelope and sent it registered mail
on the same date, August 29th, 2008.

I check Canada Post's on line tracker.
Joe's registered letter reaches Chatham
on September 4th, 2008. But the tracker
indicates that the registered letter to
Northstar shows as "accepted at Windsor"
The appearance is that the envelope with
the warranty transfer is still sitting
at the Windsor post office. I head to the
post office to find out what's going on.
They don't know and give me a card with
a list of Canada Post numbers I can contact
to get help. I don't call right away.
I have sneaking suspicion that the missing
registered mail containing the window warranty
transfer is not a fluke.

I notice another warranty transfer certificate.
I'm not certain whether the $100.00 administration
fee covers both certificates or if I need to
send $100.00 for each certificate. I decide
to write two separate cheques. I figure if
the fee covered both, Northstar would return
one of the cheques. At least I hoped so. You
never know these days.

I go to a post office at another location and
this time I send the warranty by Xpress post
because I'm running out of time. It has to
be at Northstar by September 15th.
Guess what? My suspicion was right. It wasn't
a fluke. The same thing happened. The Canada
Post tracker indicated that the mail was
"accepted at Windsor." Nothing further. Again
the appearance was it never left Windsor.
I still didn't contact the post office. I
decided I would after I contacted Northstar.

I contacted NorthStar's head office in St.
Thomas. I spoke to someone who transferred
me to their accounts receivable department.
I then spoke to a women about the warranty
transfer. I asked if I could fax the certificates
and pay the administration fee by credit card.
She said I could. So that's what I did. I faxed
the certificates and paid the $100.00 administration
fee by credit card on the last day that I had to get
the certificates to NorthStar, September 15th, 2008.
I also put stop payment on all three cheques.

I made a mental list of those I knew were aware of
the warranty transfer. The previous owners who
coincidentally are my next door neighbours, who
coincidentally had the two NorthStar workers
doing work at their home, the law offices involved
in the transaction. Those are the parties that I
know were aware of the warranty transfers.

A couple days later I contact Canada Post. I
give the employee the tracking numbers for
the envelopes sent by registered mail and
Xpress post. She reads the same thing, "
accepted at Wiindsor." She finds it bizarre.
Her word.

She asked me what I was sending.
I explain to her that I just moved to my
home and that it was a warranty transfer
for windows that had to be submitted within
30 days of my taking possession of the house.
She asked the name of the company and the
telephone number, which I provide. She tells
me Canada Post can reimburse me for the
money, but I there would be no investigation
if I'm reimbursed first. I tell her to
investigate first. She gives me case number
for the register envelope, case no: 648 9842
and for the Xpress post, case no; 648 9906.

The following day, Tuesday September 16th, 2008,
while I'm out arranging for stop payments on
all three cheques written out to NorthStar,
the women from NorthStar's account receivable
department leaves me a message indicating
that she had three cheques from me for $100.00
each that she was returning to me. I could hear
her lightly chuckling. I can't say I blame her.
She also indicated that she was including a
receipt for my credit card payment of the
administration fee.

I receive two telephone messages from Canada
Post indicating that they were going to
reimburse me for my cost. For some reason,
although NorthStar did receive my mail, once
the envelopes left Windsor, for some reason
they were not scanned again, giving the
appearance when viewing the tracker, that
the envelopes never left Windsor.

The entire thing was really strange. It
made me think that someone did not
want me to benefit from the warranty
transfer. It was really odd to register
two letters on the same day, different
addresses, to have one letter reach its
destination and other containing the
warranty certificate, appearing on the
on line tracker as if it never left
the post office. For the same thing to
occur at different post office...well?


In between the issue of the missing warranty
transfer certificates, I was dealing with a
Ducana sales person, Joe, who didn't want to
understand that cancel means cancel. I'll
be posting Part III shortly.

The Window Stalker or Stalkers - Part 1

I speak to a Ducana Windows sales
rep on the phone. We agree on a time
and date for the sales rep, I'll
call Joe to meet at my home. Joe
arrives at my home promptly on
Friday August, 29th, 2008. He was
just as pleasant in person as he
was when I spoke to him on the
phone. He appeared to be a nice
guy. While he was in my home my
opinion of him later dimmed, but
I'm not going to post why.

There were two men doing work at my
next door neighbour's home. One of
the men knocked on my door while Joe
was still in my home and asked that
my husband move his vehicle. Joe had
his car parked half on my neighbour's
driveway and half on my driveway. I
told the guy, he's not my husband, he's
a sales rep from Ducana. I asked Joe to
move his car. He did.

So we wrapped up the order and Joe left.
A couple hours later, I head out. I return
a few hours later. The two workers are still
at my neighbour's. As I'm walking up my
driveway, the older of the two, calls me
over. He points to the work that he
and his partner were doing for my
neighbour. He then asked me how much Ducana
was charging me for the windows. I tell him
and a knowing look passes between him and
his partner. Then he tells me that he and
his partner put in the windows in my house.
He said it was Ducana Windows that they
replaced. He said that Ducana was charging
way too much. He then gives me an estimate
of how much they would charge. Of course
it's much lower. I ask the name of the company
they work for and the older gentlemen says,
Northstar, as in NorthStar Vinyl Windows and
Doors

The NorthStar workers mention a government
program. They tell me that I could get $30.00
from the provincial government and $30.00
from the federal government for each window I
replace. My neighbour overhearing the conversation,
(that's what she said) comes out of her house
to add to the discussion.
They tell me that all the window businesses know
about the government program and the Ducana rep
should have told me. They suggest that I cancel
my order with Ducana. And that's exactly what I
did.


FYI


Did you know that under Ontario's
Consumer Protection Act, if you make
a purchase or sign a contract in your
home and then change your mind you have
within 10 days to notify the company
of your change of heart. The 10 days
is referred to as the cooling off
period. It's best you do so in writing
by fax or registered mail. Once the
company has been notified, it has 15
days to return your money.

Ministry of Small Business and
Consumer Services
http://www.gov.on.ca/MGS/en/ConsProt/050451.html

The Window Stalker or Maybe Stalkers

In my last post I wrote that my next post
would be about a window salesperson going
stalker because I canceled in writing by
fax and registered mail, an order for windows.
I'm working on it. Stay tuned.

Insubordination or Insolence?

I got more time off. An additional
one day suspension on Tuesday September
9th, 2008 for insubordination on Friday
August 8th, 2008. The only problem with
that is I was not insubordinate because
I did not refuse a direct order. If I
was accused of insolence, well I suppose,
an employee calling one's supervisor Hitler
and a piece of shit, would be seen as
insolence, by some, but not HR. It's
seen as insubordination.

A little research on the net informed me
of the difference between insubordination
and insolence. Insubordination is an
intentional refusal to obey an employer's
lawful and reasonable order. Insolence
is an employee's derisive, contemptuous
or abusive language, generally directed
at a superior.

So what do you think? Was I insubordinate
or insolent?

My next post will be about a recent incident
involving a window salesperson and his
refusal to accept my in writing canceled order.
I canceled my order only a few hours after
agreeing to purchase windows. Short of calling
the cops on this guy, the steps I had to take
to get rid of my window stalker. Stay tuned.

Consumer Protection Act -Part I

I speak to a Ducana Windows sales
rep on the phone. We agree on a time
and date for the sales rep, I'll
call Joe to meet at my home. Joe
arrives at my home promptly on
Friday August, 29th, 2008. He was
just as pleasant in person as he
was when I spoke to him on the
phone. He appeared to be a nice
guy. While he was in my home my
opinion of him later dimmed, but
I'm not going to post why.

There were two men doing work at my
next door neighbour's home. One of
the men knocked on my door while Joe
was still in my home and asked that
my husband move his vehicle. Joe had
his car parked half on my neighbour's
driveway and half on my driveway. I
told the guy, he's not my husband, he's
a sales rep from Ducana. I asked Joe to
move his car. He did.

So we wrapped up the order and Joe left.
A couple hours later, I head out. I return
a few hours later. The two workers are still
at my neighbour's. As I'm walking up my
driveway, the older of the two, calls me
over. He points to the work that he
and his partner were doing for my
neighbour. He then asked me how much Ducana
was charging me for the windows. I tell him
and a knowing look passes between him and
his partner. Then he tells me that he and
his partner put in the windows in my house.
He said it was Ducana Windows that they
replaced. He said that Ducana was charging
way too much. He then gives me an estimate
of how much they would charge. Of course
it's much lower. I ask the name of the company
they work for and the older gentlemen says,
Northstar, as in NorthStar Vinyl Windows and
Doors

The NorthStar workers mention a government
program. They tell me that I could get $30.00
from the provincial government and $30.00
from the federal government for each window I
replace. My neighbour overhearing the conversation,
(that's what she said) comes out of her house
to add to the discussion.
They tell me that all the window businesses know
about the government program and the Ducana rep
should have told me. They suggest that I cancel
my order with Ducana. And that's exactly what I
did.


FYI


Did you know that under Ontario's
Consumer Protection Act, if you make
a purchase or sign a contract in your
home and then change your mind you have
within 10 days to notify the company
of your change of heart. The 10 days
is referred to as the cooling off
period. It's best you do so in writing
by fax or registered mail. Once the
company has been notified, it has 15
days to return your money.

Ministry of Small Business and
Consumer Services
http://www.gov.on.ca/MGS/en/ConsProt/050451.html

It's Not Over

Click on picture to enlarge.








I was hoping the incident that occurred a
at work a few weeks ago was done. See my
post of Friday August 8th, 2008, titled,
"Suspended". I was suspended on the Friday.
The day before the supervisor that suspended
me approved my request for vacation the
for the following week.

Since I was suspended I didn't know if
my vacation would be cancelled in light
of the suspension. I was not
contacted by anyone from work so I had to
figure it out myself.

I decided that the best way to determine
whether if I was still on suspension was
to wait and see if my vacation pay was direct
deposited into my account. If it wasn't,
I was still on suspension. I did receive my
vacation pay which told me that, the week of
August 11th I was not on suspension. The
following week, the week of August 18th was a
layoff week.

Wednesday, I'm summoned to a disciplinary
interview with human resources. It's the
first contact I have with a union rep.
in regards to the August 8th incident. At
the end of the interview I know I am in
trouble because there's no proof that
this rule, no sleeping on breaks, is not a rule.
And HR is looking to administer more discipline.

Well actually there was proof but it was behind
a glass case and my impression was no one had
copy it or access to a key to get it but HR.
So I took pictures. I took pictures of the
Company's rules of personal conduct for employees,
posted few feet outside HR's office.

Later at home I uploaded the pictures to my
computer and printed off the clearest one of
the bunch and faxed it over to the union rep.
I asked the rep in an accompanying letter to
present the rules to the supervisor and the HR
rep. ask which of the rules listed was I breaking
when the supervisor woke me up to tell me
I can't sleep on my break.

The following day I learn that the rep. is
not in. This morning I fax a copy of the
letter I sent to the rep. and a copy
of the picture of the Company rules to the
HR rep. The union rep is in today and appeared
with another rep to tell me that the fax
of the rules came out blurry and asked if
I had another copy on me. I said, "No." I
said I'd bring another copy in on Monday.

I asked how they prove their cases without
a copy of the Company rules. The rep.
responded that the Chair probably has a copy
but he's not in today . I suggested that the
rep use her cell phone camera to take a picture
of the posted rules. She said, "No" She
wanted a copy of the rules. So I don't
know.

I've Moved.

I'm in my new home. In the end everything
worked out, thankfully. There were a couple
of incidents that occurred that could have
caused me some problems. One of which I'll
mention, the other I won't.

When I went to pick up the keys for my
new house the lawyer's assistant handed
me some papers with the keys. Earlier
that day, August 15th, the closing date,
I met with the lawyer and signed all the
papers, including for receipt of a cheque.
When the assistant handed me the papers I
immediately looked for the cheque. Guess
what? There was no cheque.

Thankfully,I checked before I left the
office and in front of the assistant, rather
than wait until I left the office. The
assistant said she forgot to cut the
cheque. I waited a few minutes while she
cut the cheque. When I received the cheque
I left. It was a relief to get the cheque
because if not, it would have created
another headache that I'd have to deal with.

After you've left your lawyer's office, how
do you prove that you did not receive a
cheque that you signed for? I've asked myself
this question a number of times. Had I not
discovered the cheque missing until I got
home, my first thought would have been it
wasn't included with the documents and keys
given to me by the assistant. But on
further thought, the cheque could have fell
somewhere. I simply lost the cheque.

I think that if I discovered that the
cheque was missing after I left my lawyer's
office, I would just assume the cheque
fell sometime after I left my lawyer's office.
So I would just contact my lawyer and tell him
that I lost the cheque and ask if he would put
a stop payment on the lost cheque and cut
me another cheque.

Turn Around America

Although this short video is American
much of it applies to Canada as well.
It's a great video, great message.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WE7BxWsp81Q

Suspended

I was initially suspended for raising my voice. Then I
inadvertently upped the ante by calling the supervisor
Hitler, and then subsequently calling him a piece of shit.

I'm sick of being bothered by two-faced backstabbing
pricks and beaches, including individuals in positions
of trust like this supervisor. How do you trust and respect
one's supervisor when one's supervisor doesn't like you
and in turn doesn't respect you. You can't just go.
work, do your job and go home at the end of your shift.
They are obsessed. They don't leave a person alone.
It's one thing after another,after another, with
these people. It's like they have a mental illness.
I want to scream, "WHAT THE EEF IS WRONG WITH YOU!
WHAT ARE YOU CRAZY OR SOMETHING? LEAVE ME THE EEF ALONE!"

Why doesn't this supervisor like me? Because he
knows, that I know that that he and rest of his
ilk are BAD NEWS. They want to turn Canada into
China. They treat you as if you are residing
in Communist China as it is. Why else the big
deal over my sleeping during my break. Oh Yeah,
flexible work rules! What a joke that is. Change
the rules when you want to screw a worker for no
reason other than, you feel like it. Oh
and you though flexible work rules were
about productivity - it can be, but it's
also about abuse too.

How do you create monsters? Modern Operating
Agreements and worse, Competitive Operating
Agreements. Unionized workplaces, that are
non union. I know, real clever.

My last break is at 2:00 p.m. I decided to take
a power nap. This supervisor wakes me up to tell
me that I cannot sleep while on my break. It's
the most absurd thing I have ever heard.
It's nonsense, but this supervisor is going to
run with it anyway. I ask the supervisor if he's
going to tell me If and when I can go to the
washroom on my break. If I can go to the cafeteria
or for a walk. The point being is this supervisor ,
going to decide what I do on my free time. Oh,
and according to this supervisor this no sleeping
during my break was supported by human resources.
I'm wasn't surprise by that - HR's involvement.

You know what kills me about people like this
supervisor, they have had all the advantages that
Canada has provided them and have sucked up
all the advantages (freedoms) Canada has to offer,
but yet have the audacity to attempt to deprive
others of the same. How arrogant and ungrateful.
As for those that were raised here, they are
ingrates too.

This supervisor approved my vacation week for
next week the day before, but he has also put me
suspension. So I don't know what' going to
happen in terms of being paid for next week. If
it's already approved, what now? I know your
thinking, ask the union. But the only thing I'll
say about the union is that they have become very
bold about doing nothing, which is the same as
complicity isn't it?

Learned Something New today

Did you know that if your lawyer breaches
the confidentiality clause of a contract
that you signed, it could become void?
Apparently you can become liable if your
lawyer decides to publish the agreement
(if it is the agreement that is
confidential or clause),which can cause
it to become void, and in turn causing
his/her client to forfeit the settlement
amount.

An example of this would be if my lawyer
disclosed the expense amount contrary to
the confidentiality clause of the Agreement.
If that occurred I could lose the expenses
set out in the Agreement. Not cool!

Ten days after signing the purchase of sale,
I signed another purchase of sale for another
house. The closing date is on August 15th, 2008.
too. My lawyer is handling that transaction
as well.

I have to have faith that all will be well,
but not blind faith.

Nazism -

Did you know that the official
name of the Nazi Party was the
National Socialist Workers'
Party? A workers' party? Can you
believe that? How creepy is that.
Did you also know that Nazism
is commonly known as National
Socialism. The Nazis were socialist!
OMG! Thank God we live in a free
and democratic country, Canada.
Let's keep it that way. Though the
socialist among us may have other ideas -

well not all socialist, just those
that have more in common with theNazis.

We need to appreciate and value the
individual rights and freedoms that
we have in Canada, because if we don't
the Nazi types will continue to spread
their wings far and wide, when the
power of democracy should be clipping
their wings.

Nazism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism

The Rise of Adolf Hitler
http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/index.html

A New Beginning

http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/new.htm

The German's elect Hitler

http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/elect.htm

The Triumph of Hitler

http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/triumph/tr-boycott.htm

Closing Date

I received written confirmation yesterday
that August 15th, 2008 is the closing date,
not August 14th as I indicated in an earlier
post.

In my mind August 15th, is actually 61 days
not 60 days. If you look under Schedule 'A',
"Closing Date" it says, " the date that is
30 DAYS FROM ACCEPTANCE OF THIS AGREEMENT
OF PURCHASE AND SALE." I pulled out my
Webster's dictionary and looked up the word
'from.' its defined as follows: "indicating
a point of departure or starting point in
place or time or abstract calculation; indicating
origin"

Therefore, based on the definition
of the word 'from', the date of acceptance,
June 16th, 2008, would be the starting
point. Thus 60 days from June 16th, is
August 14th. Hey, I could be wrong
but, that's what it looks to be to me.

I'm suppose to sign an amended agreement
about a week before close and I would
think that since the closing date is
August 15th, not August 14th, I wouldn't
expect to see the word 'from' included
in the definition of "Closing Date."

By the way, I'm ok with August 15th,
2008 for the closing date. I just hope
the amended agreement reflects the
August 15th, closing date more accurately.
And perhaps that's what EWCP's lawyer
was quoting from, the amended version
of the agreement, when he wrote in his
letter,
" The Agreement of Purchase and Sale
with regard to the above-noted matter
states at "Definitions" of Schedule "A"
that the closing is 60 days after the
Agreement has been entered into."

EDIT IN - Sunday July 06, 2008

I think a more accurate definition
of "Closing Date" under Schedule "A"
of the Agreement of Purchase and
Sale would be to include the actual
date of closing, August 15, 2008.

Check out the agreement

http://picasaweb.google.com/scwmark/EastWindsor
CogenerationPropertiesInc
AgreementOfPurchaseAndSaleJune0520't 08

City offered church for $1.00

For those of you who don't know yet,
we finally settled on Monday June 16th,
2008. The closing date is in 60 days.
I counted on my calendar that the
60th day is on August 14, 2008.
Though, I'll have to get confirmation
on the date. My understanding is that
about a week before closing I'll be required
to sign an agreement with the actual date
included (an amendment). So everything
looks hunky dory for now. And you thought
miracles don't happen.

The following day, June 17th, I was perusing
the Windsor Star, and I came across the
article, "Bank building's days numbered."
Guess what? The London diocese offered to
sell Our Lady of the Rosary church to the
city for $1.00. I was stunned. The city
would get the building not quite free, but
just about free. $1.00!!

Apparently the church requires about 2 million
in repairs. I suppose really when you look at
it, the city actually will be buying the
church for $1.00 plus about an additional
2 million when you factor in the repairs.
Our Lady of the Rosary church is a beautiful
building and I think it will be money well spent.

Although I'm not Catholic, I always felt that
with the church as my next door neighbour God
was looking out for me. And so far He has.



"Bank building days numbered"
http://www.canada.com/windsorstar/news/
story.html?id=5053ad69-d6cd-4214-a940
-4be2e80ae132&p=

It's Settled!

We have an agreement, finally.

I've done my part

At the lawyer's office yesterday
I signed the agreement (less clause
11, Right to Occupy) given to me
by the agent. So I've done my
part.

Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, Ontario

I have an appointment with the lawyer
tomorrow to sign the Agreement
of Purchase and Sale (Offer),
provided by EWCP's Buckingham agent.
The Offer has not been signed
by the Buyer but indicates the
Buyer's Offer is irrevocable by
June 16th, 2008.
So when's an offer from the Buyer
not an offer? When the offer is not
signed by the Buyer.
The agreement provides a clause
giving me, the Seller, the right
to occupy the property rent free
for a period of 90 days. I would
be responsible for maintaining the
property, utilities and insurance.

Insurance is the problem. Initially
the clause required that I maintain
Tenant Insurance policy for the
property. I contacted the agent
and he said I could replace the word
'property' with the word 'content'.
That lead me to take issue with
a landlord dictating to a prospective
tenant that they have to take out
tenant insurance. Why would that be
the landlord's business. The agent told
me that removing the bit on the insurance
could be a deal breaker.

Well guess what? I'm removing the
part of clause 11, that requires
Tenant Insurance. The offer hasn't
been signed by the Buyer anyway.
Can't break a deal when there isn't
one to begin with or an offer for
that matter.

So why remove it? Because
under the Residential Tenancies
Act, I would not be consider a tenant
because clause 11, "Right to Occupy,
indicates that I can occupy the
property rent free. To be consider
a tenant under the RTA, you have to
pay rent.

This leads to the next
issue, Tenant Insurance. Do you
think that an insurance company
would pay out a claim on a tenant
insurance policy, if it discovered
that I was not a tenant as per the law.
Well, I'll give you the answer the
insurance company gave me. "No."

Check out the the definition of "tenant"
under the heading, Interpretation, s. 2.1 of
the Residential Tenancies Act,2006.

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/
english/elaws_statutes_06r17_e.htm#BK3

Also check out Buyer's Offer (wink, wink)

http://picasaweb.google.com/scwmark/EastWindsor
CogenerationPropertiesInc
AgreementOfPurchaseAndSaleJune052008


Edit in

On further thought, I'm simply
just going to cross out clause 11
of Schedule 'A'. I'd have no
protection. The closing date
will have to change from 30 days
to maybe 60 days or longer.

Clean Slate

The agent contacted me. That should
be a good sign, right? Well, I don't
know. I'd like to get this settled
so that we can move on. But I don't
want to end up homeless and with no
money because the objective hasn't
change, just the route.

The agent said something that bothered
me. He told me that I would be paying
off my mortgage myself. Now it seems to
me that if we are going to try to reach
an agreement, we should at least try
to start with a clean slate. And
a clean slate would be that I trust
others will do their jobs. So
I'm not paying off my mortgage myself.
That's for the lawyers to deal with.

Last week I was at St. Clair College
and I picked up a real estate book from
the college book store titled, Advanced
Residential Real Estate Transactions,
Second Edition, by Mark W. Walma, MA, LLB.
Funny thing about that was I didn't go
to the book store with the idea of
buying a book on real estate. I was
just browsing and came across the book.

On the same day I bought the
book, which was last Wednesday, I came
home to find a message on my answering
machine from the agent, who I hadn't
heard from in some time. I returned
his call the following day. Anyways,
I picked up the book to learn a little
about the process. So hopefully it will
be of some help.

Same ole same ole or a change in the wind?

I met with EWCP's Buckingham agent today.
He called last week and we agreed to meet
today to determine if an agreement can be
reached. I think an agreement can be reached.
But the bigger issue for me is trust. Can
I trust the other side?

City Community Improvement Plan

From the moment I read section 4(d)
of the agreement (Agreement of Purchase
and Sale), I wonder about the clause.
Schedule 'A', Section 4(d) refers to
my Property being included in the City's,
City of Windsor Community Improvement Plan.
I wonder if the agreements of the previous
homeowners of 2929 and 2939 Riverside Drive
East also included the same clause. The
appraisal indicates my property is in good
condition. I know that the 'improvement' can't
be referring to an improvement in the quality of
the building. So this improvement plan must be
referring to an improvement in the quality of
something else. I wonder what that might be?




http://picasaweb.google.com/scwmark/
EastWindsorCogenerationPropertiesAug2007OfferCounterOffe

August 2007 Offer/Counter offer

I've posted the August 2007
offer/counteroffer in my
google photo gallery, Note
condition 4(e), the confidentiality
clause and September 12th, 2007
letter.

http://picasaweb.google.com/scwmark/
EastWindsorCogenerationPropertiesAug2007OfferCounterOffer

Also see archives or copy and paste link
to browser, for September 16th, 2007 post, tilted,
East Windsor Cogeneration LP- Half a house?

http://homesellersbeware.blogspot.com/2007/09/
east-windsor-cogeneration-lp-half-house.html

Seagrave- The content of demoliton Permit

"The permit erroneously refers
to the two-storey building as
one storey. And while it lists
it as an abandoned commercial
building at 961 Walker Road, it
lists the location of the
demolition at 933 Walker Road."
Quote from The Windsor Star
article titled, "Seagrave
demolition called a national loss."

I was thinking what would a
demolition permit for 2929
Riverside Drive East read?
I bet it would erroneously
refer to the semi-detached
building, as a detached building.
On the other hand a permit could
list the building as semi-detached
units, implying that EWCP owns both
properties, when it only owns
2929. That would be another
Eff-up, wouldn't it?

The difference between a detached
building and a semi-detached?
A detached unit is a single
dwelling unit standing alone,
separately titled. A semi-detached
unit is one of a pair of self-
contained dwelling units often of
mirror design, attached by a
common wall but detached from
other buildings; separate titles.
(Info. fr. Ottawa Real Estate
Board website)

Seagrave building called national loss
http://www.canada.com/windsorstar/news/story.html?id=
e74f47ef-77fc-49f8-a102-e71ae3116acf

FYI

Did you know that the previous
owner of the semi-detached, 2929
Riverside Drive East, Debbie Revels,
is the aunt of the children of a city
council person? Look for the common
denominator. There's a link or
more accurately another one. It may
mean nothing or it may mean something.
But too many coincidences are not
coincidences.

Seagrave Buidling - The demolition permit

or
















Guess who issued the demolition
permit for the Seagrave Building?
Check out today's Windsor Star.

"Seagrave demolition called
national loss"


http://www.canada.com/windsorstar/news/story.html?id=
e74f47ef-77fc-49f8-a102-e71ae3116acf

"History in the rubble"
http://www.canada.com/windsorstar/news/sports/story.html?id
=7898cadb-c437-425d-b173-6ba4db33d051

If you get a chance, read my February
2008 posts found in the Archives.

My Google Video Clips of Area

http://video.google.ca/

type in search box, East Windsor
Cogeneration Project - The threat
of demolition.

I am the last homeowner

I did a title search on 2939 Riverside
Drive East. Transfer of the title of the
property to East Windsor Cogeneration
Properties Inc. occurred on November 15,
2007. EWCP purchased the property for
$263,350. This amount would not include
the Sellers's expenses.

What made me decide to do a title search?
I was on my way to work and saw a car
in their driveway that I had never seen
been for. Of course it could be guests
or they could have got a new vehicle,
but I've been told they like Volvos
and that's all I've ever seen in their
driveway.

Yesterday there was an older Volvo,
at least it looked like their car, parked
in the driveway. This little blue car parked
in the driveway today seemed all wrong.
The second clue was the older women
from Habitat for Humananity. I saw
her and she was in a good mood when
she saw me. That wasn't a good sign.






avascript:void(0)
Publish Post.
Usually she is not pleasant.

Forced Eviction

It occurred to me that if my house
was demolished I would still have
to pay the mortgage and taxes on
the property since I would still own
the property. What a scam that would
be.

Forced Eviction & Human Rights

What is forced eviction?
The practice of forced eviction
involves the involuntary removal
of persons from their homes or
land either directly or indirectly
attributable to the State. Forced
evictions can always be attributed
directly or indirectly to
specific decisions, legislation
or policies of States or the
failure of States to intervene
to halt forced evictions by
third parties.

There is an element of "force"
or coercion involved in forced
eviction. Forced eviction often
involves the irreparable demolition
of homes of affected persons, sometimes
as a form of punishment for political
or other activities.

Forced evictions can be carried out,
sanctioned, demanded, proposed,
initiated, or tolerated by a number of
actors, including national governments
local and municipal governments,
occupational authorities, developers,
planners, landlords (public and private),
property speculators and international
financial institutions and other agencies.
Importantly, the ultimate legal
responsibility for preventing forced
evictions, however, always rests
with Governments, no matter which
actors are the driving force behind
a particular eviction.

Info. from Fact Sheet NO.25, Forced
Evictions and Human Rights; from
the Office of the High Commissioner
for Human Rights.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu6/2/fs25.htm

Don't forget to read my earlier postS,
"Legal Description of Property & PIN";
"My letter to editor -Unfair Advantage"
"It's Personal" , Feb. 12, 2008

Legal Desciption of Property & PIN

The legal description of property
is the description recognized by law
that is sufficient to locate and
identify property. The legal
description is not the address of the
building. The address of a property
may change but the legal description
usually will not. The government
will always know where it will be
collecting its taxes. So it has to
know where to find our property
regardless of an address change on
the property. The legal description
ensures that an address change on a
property won't lose or hide a property
from the government.

Legal description can be found on
the deed, city tax assessment and also
the Agreement of Purchase and Sale.
The legal description of my property,
2925 Riverside Drive East is,
PT LT 99 CON 1
SANDWICH EAST
PTS 1, 3, 4
12R11736, S/T
R1459252,WINDSOR

The Property Identification
Number (PIN) is a unique
number assigned to every
parcel of land in Ontario. The
PIN will identify the owner (s)
of a property and other info.
via title search and other land
related searches. The 'active'
PIN for my property is, 01090-
0222 (LR).

The legal description for
EWCC/EWCP's property, 2929
Riverside Drive East is
PT LT 99 CON 1
SANDWICH EAST
PT 2,
12R11736; T/W
R1189505;
WINDSOR.
The'active' PIN is,
01090-0221(LR)

The legal description & PIN shows
that the semi-detached properties
are different lots.

I was told that all the properties
had been purchased by EWCC/EWCP.
But now I am not so certain of
that. My other Riverside Drive
neighbour may not have sold or have
but haven't moved yet. The family
is still there.

Enwin Utilities was by this morning
to shut off the power at the house
behind me, 220 Cadillac Street. It's
the last house on Cadillac Street to
be demolished.

Oh by the way, my property taxes are
paid weekly.

My letter to editor - Unfair Advantage

Click on image to enlarge.

My letter to the editor
was published in the
Windsor Star April 26, 2007.

Expropriation vs Demolition

If the city approved a demolition
permit for 2929 Riverside Drive
East, EWCC/EWCP's semi-detached,
then not only would the corporation
make out like a bandit because it
only had to pay for half the
building to get a demolition permit
for the demolition of the whole
building, but the city wouldn't have
to worry about any future cost of expropriating
my semi-detached property, 2925 Riverside
Drive East. I think I know how
that would work, 2925 "NO SUCH
ADDRESS IN CIS"

And to think a year ago I thought
expropriation was the worse
case senario.

Microsoft Virtual Earth - The Seagrave Building

Want to see the Seagrave
building before it's
demise? Go to Microsoft
Virtual Earth and type in
the search box, 961
Walker Road Windsor
Ontario Canada. You'll
see a satellite image of
the Seagrave building.
Although the satellite
image is old, it's still
pretty cool to see.
Try 963 Walker too. And
take look see at 2929 & 2925
Riverside Drive East.

If you want to know about the document
I've posted, see my earlier post below.
Click on image to enlarge


Microsoft Virtual Earth address
http://maps.live.com/

On February 5, 2008, I faxed a letter
of the same date to the city's Building
department manager, Mr. Bill Jean. Shortly
after I sent the fax, I received by fax
from the city's building department a
"REQUEST FOR INFORMATION" attachment,
from a city employee, that was not Mr. Jean.
The request had nothing to do with my
letter. About a minute or so later, I
received another "REQUEST FOR INFORMATION"
that was in regards to my letter.
A cover letter indicated that the wrong
attachment had been sent the first time.

After reading the contents, I decided
to keep the document rather than throw
it away. At the time, it seemed similar
to me

Until the Seagrave story, I had forgotten
all about the document. It was the address
of 933 Walker road indicated in the
earlier story about the Seagrave demolition,
that made me think of the document. When
I checked the address numbers indicated in
the document. Neither address numbers were
933. So I was really surprised today to turn
to the letters to the editor section
of the Windsor Star to see a picture of the
demolished Seagrave building,with the few bricks
still standing, with white painted on
address number of 961. Now that address
number was in the document. Click on
document to enlarge. See letter below.


City heritage at risk at
Lettert
Published: Friday, April 18, 2008

The historic Seagrave Building is lost ... perhaps it's time to save the Windsor Heritage Committee itself from "demolition."

I have served on the Windsor Heritage Committee for 10 years, most of those in the capacity of chair. I'm proud to be associated with the achievements the WHC has made toward protecting our city's heritage. This has included the recent preservation of the Holy Rosary Convent and John Campbell school buildings and multiple other property designations under the Ontario Heritage Act. We have been grateful for the strong heritage awareness and support exhibited by the current city council for these initiatives. As well, the committee has carried on a long tradition of annual local heritage celebration through community recognition awards, Heritage Highlights video clips, heritage property funding, youth colouring contests and many other projects. Indeed, the vibrancy of Windsor's heritage advocacy was recognized in 2005 as a provincial standout by the Ontario Heritage Trust.

Beyond the significant efforts by a group of volunteer members, the lifeblood of the WHC has traditionally been the dedicated and professional service of the heritage planner, a full- time city staff member who would conduct our research, guide the structure of our motions, police other city departments with respect to heritage priorities and otherwise co-ordinate all aspects of WHC activities. It is a vital and indispensable role in the heritage life of our city. Windsorites owe a debt of gratitude to Nancy Morand who served with distinction in this capacity for many years until her retirement mid last year.
REDUCED TO RUBBLE: Demolition crews dismantle an old brick building in the 900 block of Walker Road last Thursday. The building reportedly housed Seagraves Fire Engine manufacturing plant.View Larger Image View Larger Image
REDUCED TO RUBBLE: Demolition crews dismantle an old brick building in the 900 block of Walker Road last Thursday. The building reportedly housed Seagraves Fire Engine manufacturing plant.

It's with Nancy's departure that our serious problems began. We expected that her qualified replacement would be hired in advance for training and a seamless transition prior to her leaving.

Instead, without consultation with us, an arbitrary decision was made by senior administration not to replace the position, ostensibly, for reasons of cost efficiency. In the void left behind, we now have heritage chaos. Murky interdepartmental and personal agendas prevail and we've seen a silly tug-of-war over the heritage mandate between planning and cultural affairs departments.

As a result, we fail to receive adequate support from either. The careful protocols put in place by Nancy to flag heritage interests among building and planning departments applications has broken down and big things are falling through the cracks. Our modest operating budget has been cut to one-third its traditional level. Heritage Week in Windsor was effectively cancelled this year because no one could get authorization to reproduce a few hundred copies of the colouring contest form to distribute to the schools and the community heritage recognition awards were hijacked by others. Despite this, we try to carry on. I laud the efforts of our Doors Open subcommittee dedicated to bringing back this popular program notwithstanding lacklustre financial and material support from the city. But even our recent initiatives toward saving the prominent Low-Martin House have been stymied by needless procedural wrangling evident of a city administration without an appropriate structure for heritage administration.
attention of the CAO and other senior administration staff without the courtesy of a reply. We have also appealed to our councillors without effect.

It's time for council and the mayor to review this matter "in the full light of day." Without it, it's only a matter of time before another Seagrave building falls to a bulldozer and the Windsor Heritage Committee is damaged beyond repair.

GREGORY HEIL
Chair, Windsor Heritage Committee

To see picture
http://www.canada.com/windsorstar/news/letters/story.html?id=f247f53d-9060-456a-a41a-03361fce0439&k=84698

Historical Building Demolished

This demolition just goes to show
that my concern that I could arrive
home one day to find my house demolished,
(as well as dead pets), isn't far fetched.
Fortunately the building demolished wasn't
someone's home and the building was vacant.
Read the article below.


History erased, city hall blamed
Doug Williamson, Windsor Star
Published: Friday, April 11, 2008

The chairman of Windsor's heritage committee says the city's building department "dropped the ball" when it approved the demolition this week of a former fire engine factory on Walker Road.

The Seagrave Building was on a heritage inventory list that was supposed to give it a 60-day grace period before a permit is issued, so the building could be evaluated for its historical significance and possibly protected.

The demolition permit application for the brick structure at 933 Walker Rd. should have been forwarded to the heritage committee before being approved, said Greg Heil.


"It was a very significant industrial building that we had hoped to designate (give it official historical designation) someday," Heil said Thursday. Such designation would hav

"The building department dropped the ball," Heil said of the approval to demolish the structure.

"The building has gone through multiple uses since, but it was a fine example of brick architecture," Heil said. "It could have had a very nice adaptive reuse and restoration had the right opportunity presented itself. In recent years it has been quite dilapidated."

Recently the building housed a carpentry business and auto body shop, but was empty at the time of demolition. In the last year there was a fire on the second floor, Weeks said.

Heil said buildings on the heritage inventory list are routinely referred to the heritage committee when demolition permits are applied for. "There was no referral to the heritage committee ... so we know that the process broke down somewhere along the way."

Bill Jean, manager of permits for the city, was not available for comment Thursday. But Ashok Sood, the building's owner, said he was unaware that it was on the heritage inventory list.

He said the building had been vacant for more than year, and was for sale or rent with no takers.

"I wish I knew, because we would have pursued it that way. I would have worked with people," Sood said. "It was too costly to renovate and I couldn't find anybody to go in." He owned the building for three years and plans to leave the property vacant for the time being.

He said he decided to tear it down because of vandalism and other problems. "I bought the building because I loved it, but I couldn't find anybody to do anything; there was no grants available, there was nothing."

Sood said he was told a few months ago by someone that the building had historical significance and gave the person his business card, but he was never contacted again.

"It was an eyesore, there was a lot of vandalism and it was looking pretty ugly."

Tony Gallippi, who owns a restaurant next door, said the demolition process slowed Walker Road traffic Wednesday and disrupted his normal luncheon business because vehicles blocked his parking lot.

"In this city we're too quick to tear things down," Gallippi said Thursday.

Heil said there are about 700 buildings on the city's heritage inventory, plus about 100 buildings that are historically designated. He said about two years ago a similar situation occurred and assurances were given by the city that it wouldn't happen again.

"We're not in the business of trying to designate every single building on the inventory. I would classify this one though as one of the more prominent and important buildings on the inventory, and we very, very much regret seeing it lost," Heil said.

The heritage committee, which met Wednesday evening and discussed the demolition, will ask the city's planning department to review the matter with the building department "and report back to us in terms of how this mistake was made and give us some assurance that it won't happen again."

Coun. Ron Jones, who along with Coun. Dave Brister sits on the heritage committee, said he was very disturbed that the demolition was allowed to proceed.



"I'm certainly appalled at the fact that somehow, some way, this fell through the cracks," said Jones, a retired firefighter. "This was on the list to be designated. The history of that building was so rich."

He said the city should step up efforts to protect historically significant buildings. "We have a list of buildings that we hope to designate, and we're just going to have to fast track some of these things. It doesn't bring this building back, but we certainly have to be conscientious as to handing out permits."

Weeks bemoaned the building's loss.

"It adds to the long list of buildings torn down in this city," she said. "I think it really is part and parcel of the concern of how the city thinks of itself."

A group calling itself scaledown.ca was angered by the demolition. It held a candlelight vigil, attended by about a dozen people, to mourn the loss of the building on Thursday night.

"It's incomprehensible, in this day and age, that something like this could be allowed to happed," said James Coulter in a news release. "Protecting the history and heritage of our city is critical to its identity -- past, present and future."

BUILT FIRST FIRE TRUCK

According to history buff Elaine Weeks, the factory was built in the early 1900s and housed the Canadian subsidiary of the Seagrave Fire Apparatus Company of Ohio. It was the first company to produce a motorized fire engine in Canada, according to Weeks' publication, The Walkerville Times. It operated from 1907 to 1923.


© The Windsor Star 2008

Getting Drunk Not Good For the Common Good

So here we go again. There's the
car parked in my driveway again.
By the way I don't drive. So
there shouldn't be any vehicles
parked on my property unless they
are my guests. This vehicle is
from the kid living in the house
behind me. He and his friends use
to park in front of the house the
kid lives in and along the street.
But AECON employees have hogged
up every parking spot on the street
including in front where the kid
lives. I can see that the street
is empty of vehicles and Our
Lady of the Rosary Church (AECON)
parking lot is empty too.

There's parking in front of the house.
I'm annoyed because I spoke to
him about this before, only about
week and half ago. And here was his
car again, parked in my driveway,
when there is parking in front
of his house and the entire street.

I speak to the kid again. He says,
he's sorry, again. My response was,
"No you're not." He admits that he
is trespassing, but then goes on to
say that he was told he could park
on the property. I asked him who told
him that. He says, "The construction guys."
Translation - AECON guys.

The kid knows he's trespassing, but
parks his vehicle on my property
anyway. Neither the kid or
his friends would have parked on
my property before the big corporations
moved in. And would have asked
before parking on my property.

When I think of this kid and some of my
other neighbours (and a particular
Habitat for Humanity employee)
a saying comes to mind, " A drunken man's
words is a sober man's thoughts."
The kid knowingly trespassing on my property
is his 'drunken man's words' his lack
of respect is his 'sober man's thoughts"
The 'sober man's thoughts" were there
before the corporation, but since the
corporations have moved in, some people
feel secure in drinking until they're
drunk.

Last Homeowner

Well it looks like I am the only
homeowner whose property EWCP
has not bought. I hope
EWCP is not of the mind
that when it bought the semi-
next door, 2929 Riverside Drive
East, that it was a 2 for 1 sale.
You know, buy 1 get the other one
free or rather buy half a building
and get the other half free.

EWCC/EWCP knew the building had
two owners and should have
negotiated the sale of the building
with both owners together, myself
and Debbie Revels who were at the
time joint owners of the building
(I'm sure you can see the obvious
problems with the confidentiality
clause). Particularly since EWCC/
EWCP wants to demolish the building.
Since I'm still here, the Revels
should still be next door.

Instead a deal was made with
only one of the building owners, Debbie
Revels. Her husband was not named on
the title. She owned the house before
she met him. Though,you wouldn't
know it if you spoke to him. The
key here is how EWCC/EWCP
interprets the deal.

I was thinking, I have two house cats.
One is almost nine years old, the
other will be eighteen years old
this year. They wouldn't dare hurt
my pets would they?

Cameras or no cameras, I am afraid,
literally,that one day I am going
to come home to find my house demolished
and my pets dead. You can best believe
that if that were to happen to me
that it will happen to others who
a corporation has an irrational
prejudice against. It's just a
matter of means, and opportunity.

One More Thing. Two weeks ago, I
spoke to the owner who owned the
house behind me. It's rental property.
At that time, he told me that he had
not heard from EWCP, although his nephew
had told me just the week prior they were
talking. Today, the nephew told me that
his uncle sold the house. He said that he
thinks that his uncle got $200.000. It's
possible. I know when I spoke to
him a couple weeks ago he said he
made an offer of $230.000.

Home Security Cameras

Last week I had home surveillance
cameras installed on my house.
What I like the most about the
system I purchase is that it
provided software that allows me
to view my property over
a computer from anywhere in the
world. It also records 24/7.

I was thinking to myself, "If I
posted my IP address I could
have more than just myself keeping
an eye on my property." It's
something I am considering doing.
We'll see.

Still No News

All's quiet. I haven't heard
from anyone.

As it turns out I am not the
only homeowner that has not
settled as yet. There is one
other homeowner that has not,
possibly two.

I wonder what the game plan is
going to be once I'm the only
homeowner left, surrounded
by sharks - I mean my new corporate
neighbours.

On my way to work on Tuesday, I
noticed three police vehicles parked
on Cadillac Street. I noted that
the first vehicle was parked in
front of Brian Rizok's old house.
Brian Rizok is the gentlemen that
the Windsor Star interviewed back
in April 2007, "Power plant project
irks resident", complaining that
he was being treated unfairly
by EWCC. Obviously everything
worked out for him because the
house is empty and he's gone.

I asked an Aecon worker if the police
were doing training. She answered,
"Yes." This time there was no
sign on the sidewalk advertising
the police were training. If I had
remained at home, I wouldn't have known
the police was even around. That's
how quiet they were, at least while
I was home. I never saw an officer,
just the three vehicles.

When I see the police being provided
with the empty houses to do their training,
I think to myself it's a good thing that
EWCC/EWCP didn't manage to get a
demolition permit from the city. I'd be
screwed. I wouldn't have a chance with
the police. Maybe I'm wrong and I hope
I'm wrong, but that's what I think.
Corporations are not generous by nature.
If they are being generous it's because
they expect something in return.

I've noticed that people that are enamored
with a corporation tend to take on the
corporation's Jekyll/Hyde personality.

And I still don't think I'll be
getting anything in writing from the
permit manager.

Enwin Utilities - Power On

My power is on. It was turned
on by Enwin within an hour of being
turned off at 9:30 a.m. yesterday.
SO everything is hunky dory on that
front.

Not long ago I heard a loud BOOM! and
my house shook like something hit it.
Scared the pjesus out of me. I looked
out my windows and only saw a Fedex
delivery truck parked out front of
Aecon (Our Lady Rosary Church - Cadillac
Street view). The delivery person was
unloading boxes on to a trolly. Nothing
unsual there. I open my front door and step
outside. I look next door, no damage,
it's still attached. Then it occurred to
me that maybe it's the Police Service doing
training again at one of the empty houses
on Cadillac Street. So I poked head
around the side of my house. I didn't
see a sign on the sidewalk advertising
the Police Services presence. So I
don't know what the cause was.

The last time this happened I had
visions of a giant wrecking ball
hitting my house. It was Tuesday
February 5, 2008. Scared the crap
out of me. It took a couple of minutes
for me to peel myself off my ceiling
to venture outside to see what kind
of damage I would find. I found none.
What I did see was a sign sitting
on the sidewalk in front of what looked
like the second or third house on
Cadillac Street, advertising the Police
Training Services. I presumed the
source came from there.

I thought maybe they were doing training
in handling bombs, which I thought at the
time, if they were, ironic or maybe a better
word a coincidence, maybe both, given my
post of the day before (February 4th, 2008).

Anyways all seems to be well - for now.

Enwin Utilites

I got a automated telephone message
from Enwin Utilites yesterday. A male
voice said that the power will be off
from 9:00 a.m to 10:00 a.m for the 200
block of Cadillac Street and 2900
block of Riverside Drive East. Ordinarily
I wouldn't give Enwin turning off my
power a second thought, but that was
before EWCC/EWCP.

I haven't received a written response
from the city's permit manager. It
doesn't look like I'm going to.

If you haven't already, check out my
earlier posts.

Edit In

I just got a knock on my door
from an Enwin worker. He told
me that the power will be going
out at 9:30 a.m. for an hour.
I appreciated that. It means
everything is ok. Nothing to
worry about. I'm off now to
have my second morning cup
of tea.

Have a good day everyone.

Still No Word From Permit Manager

Still no response from the city's
permit manager to my February 12th,
2008 letter.

I didn't make an appointment to
meet with lawyer#1. Instead I
faxed a letter dated February
20th, 2008, to the Buckingham
agent and copied to lawyer#1. In
the letter I pointed out that I
neglected to include in Schedule
'B', under Expenses, the additional
cost that I would incur to
purchase another property on
Riverside Drive East or a comparable
comparable street to Riverside
Drive East. I requested that the
expenses be increased by an additional
dollar amount that I provided. It's
not the first time I have brought up
the issue of cost of another home.
But it's the first time I've mentioned
Schedule 'B'.

Will it make any difference? Well,
if the objective is to get something
for nothing, even paying a penny is
too much.

Can you believe that April will be
a year that we've been at this, and
and although I've received offers from
the Buyer, the Buyer's dollar amount
has not changed in all its offers
during this entire time. They keep
making the same offer, and I keep
rejecting the same offer. It's
hardly a wonder that we've got
no where.

Anyway, the appraisl was done
February 28, 2007. According to
the appraisal report, the appraiser
valued the property using the
direct comparison approach. The
comparables were semi-detached homes
from various areas of the city. The
addresses of the comparables the
appraiser chose were as follows:
3245 Riberty Road; 8010 Menard;
4233 Old West; 4202 Pioneer.

The only street I was familar with
was Riberty Road. The other streets
I had never heard of before. So I
bought a map of Windsor from Mac's
Milk and looked up the street names.
Although the homes were semi-detached
none of the streets were comparable
to Riverside Drive East. They're not
even close. The appraisal was paid
for by the Buyer.

I also indicated in the letter that
I would be willing to agree to the
confidentialty of the expenses on
condition that I receive a cashier's
cheque for the expenses on the date
I sign the agreement.

No Word From Permit Manager

No word from the City's permit
manager, but instead I've heard
from EWCP Inc.'s lawyer. I received
a letter and an Agreement of Purchase
and Sale in the mail today. The offer
was the same.

If the Seller rejects the Buyer's
original offer, why would the Buyer
continue to counter the Seller's
counter-offers with the same offer
that's been rejected by the Seller?

I spoke to the Buckingham agent
today, who said he wanted to speak
to me first before I looked at the
agreement because he anticipated
my rejection of the offer. He knows
I've rejected the same offer a number
of times already. He said that he wanted
to meet with lawyer#1 and myself so
we could resolve those items that have
caused the present impasse. I agreed. I
told him I wanted to meet with lawyer#1
first though. I'd get back to him. So
that's that for now.

Now for the lawyer's letter. He wrote
that every individual that sold their
property to EWCP Inc., did so with a
confidentiality clause for both the
purchase price and the expenses. So
what? Perhaps the individuals didn't
know any better about the purchase price,
that once the deed is registered with the
OLR on the closing date, the purchase price
is public.

And what about the appraisals? Since
the appraised value was not included
in the confidentiality clause, then
the individuals can disclose the
appraised value of the properties
The purchase price is the appraised
value plus 10%. So you just have to
ask the right question and if you get
the answer, add 10%. That'll give you
the purchase price. The other option
is to have a title search done.

The lawyer let me know that he is aware
of my blog and took issue with the dollar
amount I posted for the purchase of 2929
Riverside Drive East. In an earlier post
I wrote that I heard through the grapevine,
that the Revels received a total of $262,000.
The lawyer is claiming that the amount is
inacurrate and so is the breakdown between the
purchase price and expenses. Really? And
how can it be proved that it's inaccurate with
a confidentialty clause that prevents the
disclosure of the purchase price and expenses.
The $262,000 could very well be accurate info.
It sounds about right to me.

More on the letter later.

Recall that I got a telephone
call from the city's building
permit manager, Bill Jean, on
Thursday, February 6, 2008, in
response to my letter of February
5, 2008 and attached proof of
title from the Ontario Land
Registry (OLR).

When we spoke he indicated that
an application for a demolition
permit for 2929 Riverside Drive
East was submitted. He said id
that because a permit would demolish
the building, the application
was being denied. The buidling is
divided into two homes referred to
as sem-detached. A permit is for
the building so if the city issued
a demolition permit for EWCP Inc.'s
2929 Riverside Drive East property,
it would demolish the building,
including my property adjacent property,
2925 Riverside Drive East.

Yesterday, it occurred to me
that it would be a good idea
to ger confirmation in writing
that a demolition permit would not
be issued. S I sent a letter to
Mr.Jean requesting confirmation.
Hopefully I get a response soon.

So why would anyone behave in
such wicked manner? Well, ask a
terrorist why he would blow up
a house with people? In his mind
he can justify the destruction
and killing but to the rest of
us, he's just plain nuts!

It's Personal

I think it's reasonable to conclude
that if someone is trying to defeat
you in any way possible, it's personal.
What's EWCP Inc.'s beef with me? Why
does it wants to destroy my property
that I worked for. I didn't get it for
free. Why would it want to demolish
the building with me in it?

What could I have possibly done that it
would want to exact such violence upon me?
What is the source of its anger and hatred?
I don't get it. Does EWCP Inc. honestly
believe that it is hiding its rage? It's
not. Something is fueling its anger, what is it?
Regardless of what it is, there's no justification
for violence or threats of violence, particularly
against a women.

Relief? Not!

I should feel relieved that a
demoliton permit will not be
issued for the building, right?
Wrong! I don't feel relieved at
all. When I picture in mind what
could have happened had EWCP Inc.
been successful in obtaining a
demolition permit from the City's
building department using its semi-
detached property next door,
(2929 Riverside Drive East), I don't
feel more secure.

I mean think about it for a minute.
Had EWCP Inc. managed to get a
demolition permit from the City, it
intended to not only demolish a building
it doesn't fully own, but demolish a
building that would be still occupied by
myself. If EWCP Inc caused a serious'
injury or worse death, what would it
claim? It was an accident? And of
course the supposed accidental death
would be blamed on me, right?

Demolition Permit Denied!

I got a call from the City's
Bill Jean, who said he received
my letter of February 5th, 2008.
He said that an application was
submitted for a demolition permit
for 2929 Riverside Drive East.
He said that a permit would not
be issued since the building is
a semi-detached building. He
said it would destroy the building.

He asked if I've been approached
about selling. I told him I have
and that I am willing to sell but
I am having problems with them
acting in good faith.

He said that he would contact
EWCP/EWCC to let them know that
their application for a demolition
permit is being denied.

Confidentiality Eh?

I just heard through the grapevine
that the former owners (the Revels)
of 2929 Riverside Drive East, received
a total package of $262,000 from
EWCP Inc. That makes sense to me.
$144,100 for the purchase price.
And $114,000 for expenses. I know,
your wondering why would the expenses
be so high? Because to purchase another
home on the Drive or comparable area
is going to cost much more than
$144,100. So that sounds about
right to me. Click on image
to enlarge.

So much for confidentiality
eh?

Deed, Title, & City Building Department

No time to write at the moment. Will later.
Click on image to enlarge.

Demolition Permit & Semi-detached Homes

This letter was written by
EWCP lawyer addressed to
lawyer#1. The lawyer copied
to me. Note requirement
to add the Buyer as first
payee on my house insurance
policy. How do you know
that the lawyer is referring
to my house insurance? Tenant
insurance doesn't include
the building, house insurance
does. Click on image to
enlarge.


Semi-detached homes are housed
in one building. So if a demolition
permit was issued, let's say for
2929 Riverside Drive East (East Windsor
Cogeneration Properties Inc.'s property)
the permit would allow for the demolition
of the building. Which would mean
my property, 2925 Riverside Drive
East would be demolished too, since my
property is housed in the same building.

I don't know yet if the City's building
department issued a demolition permit
for EWCP Inc.'s property next door,
but I should hear from them shortly.

Demolition Permit

Yesterday, I get a receipt in
the mail from the City of Windsor's
Parks and Recreation deparment.
I notice the receipt has an old
apartment address as my present
address.

I've been a homeowner and at my
present address since April 1999.
The cheque I provided has my home
addressed and the receipt was mailed
to my present address. So why was I
looking at a City receipt showing an
address that I had not seen in years.
I saw this as a bad sign. So I faxed
off a letter to the City's Building &
Development Department.

I needed to know if they issued a
demolition permit for EWCP Inc.'s
2929 Riverside Drive East property.
I also let them know that my property
is attached (semi) to EWCP Inc's property
and that we have not reached an
agreement as yet. Since my last post
I haven't heard anything from EWCP Inc.

I noticed one of the homes on Cadillac
Street was demolished some time last week.
I understand the demolitions are being
carried out by my new neighbour at Our
Lady of the Rosary Church, Aecon
Construction.

I was wondering if the City issues a
demolition permit once an agreement
has been reached between the homeowner
and EWCP Inc. or were the demolition
permits issued in advanced of any
agreement between the homeowners and
EWCP Inc. ?

If the demolition permits for all the
homes were issued before agreements
were reached with the homeowners and
EWCP Inc., then a demolition permit
would have likely been issued by the
City for my house at 2925 Riverside
Drive East. I hope this is not the
case.

Hopefully I get a response from the
the Building department soon.


Planning renovations to your
home, building a deck, etc.
If you live in Windsor, you'll
need a building permit.

Contact info.

Building & Development Department
250 City Hall Square West,
4th Floor
P.O. Box 1607
Windsor, Ontario
Canada
N9A 6S1

Tel: 519 255-6267
Fax: 519 255-7170

email: buildingdept@city.
windsor.on.ca

Inspection: 519 255-6453

Planning info.: 519 255-6281

The Buyer - Excuses, Excuses, Excuses

Shortly after posting on Friday
January 11th, 2008, I get a call
from the Buckingham agent. He
claimed that he just received an
email indicating that I sent a letter.
He said, "they didn't get it." The
claim had the ring of b.s. but
I didn't tell him that. I wasn't in
the mood to argue. He asked
who I sent the letter to. I told him
EWCP's lawyer in Chatham and lawyer#1.

I had also sent a copy to EWCP/EWCC's
in-house lawyer in Calgary. He said,
"Oh its between the lawyers." I said,
yah, I guess so." He asked how things
were progressing. I said, "I don't know."
He said he would see what he could do.

I receive a letter in the mail from the
Buyer's Chatham lawyer. I noted the
lawyer tried to send the letter by fax
on Friday, but I didn't receive it. I
have to be home to accept the fax
manually.

I think if the Buyer is willing to
forego the confidentiality clause, and
not add anything more to the Agreement
that would cause further delay (so it can
figures out how to get out of payments
to me for the purchase price and
expenses) we can get a settlement. But
the Buyer has to act in good faith.

The Buyer showed bad faith in including
the Purchase Price in the confidentiality
clause (among other things). Deleting the
Purchase Price did not show good faith
as the Buyer did not intitate the removal
on its own. The inclusion of the Purchase
Price in the confidentiality clause was
was no mistake.

It doesn't make sense to me that the
Buyer acted in bad faith in including
the Purchase Price but acted in good
faith in including the Expenses. Since
both the Purchase Price and Expenses
appeared together in the Confidentiality
clause, it seem to me that one taints the
other. If the Purchase Price was included
in bad faith, then the Expenses was
included in bad faith too. Removing the
Purchase Price from the clause doesn't
remove the stench. It still stinks.

The Buyer is insisting that the
Confidentiality clause for the Expenses
must be included in the Agreement or
it will not sign the Agreement. If the
Buyer was acting in good faith it
would delete the clause and not use it
as an excuse not to reach a settlement.

My position on the confidentiality
clause is not new to the Buyer. I
reiterated again in my latest letter
in response, that I would not sign
an Agreement if there is a confidentiality
clause.

The Buyer is no longer concerned about
insurance. The lawyer wrote: :It
appears that your suggestion in paragraph
7 is a good one; that being Closing can
occur 60 days after the Agreement is signed
and that allows us to conduct proper
searches and eliminate any insurance
concerns."

Home Insurance - Corporate Buyer First Payee?

I see Habitat for Humanity is
next door again. It's kind of
ironic that the Buyer is helping
to build homes for the needy
while at the same time angling
to deliberately destroy my
property. It would seem to
me that deliberate destruction
of my property would be a
crime. I would also think
collecting insurance as a first
payee on property it deliberately
destroyed would be a crime too.

Did I mention that the corporate
Buyer wanted me to add it to my
insurance policy as a first payee,
if I were to remain in the house
after the closing date. The closing
date is the the date I would receive
the cashier's cheques from the Buyer
and the Buyer would receive the Deed
to the house in exchange, which it
would then register with the Ontario
Land and the also the date the Buyer
registers the Deed with the Ontario
Land Registry (OLR).

And, "No', the Deed shouldn't be
registered with OLR before the
closing date because, the Buyer
is falsely claiming that it paid
x amount for the property when in
fact it has not paid for the property.
The Seller doesn't receive funds
until the closing date indicated
in the Agreement of Purchase and Sale.


It struck me as odd that a
corporation would want to be added
to my home insurance policy as first
payee on property that its itching
to destroy. Of course I would never
never add the Buyer to my home insurance
policy.