In 2017, my husband and I signed a contract to purchase a custom property from Mattamy Homes Limited and Mattamy (Preserve) Limited (“Mattamy”), a multi-billion private owned homebuilder. In 2018, Mattamy unilaterally changed the agreed-upon floor plan and infrastructure of our dream house without our consent or a valid building permit. Mattamy breached their contract and refused to return our deposit of $154,010. 

While purchases over $50 are protected under the Consumer Protection Act (“CPA”), 2002, new home purchases and their contracts are not protected under the CPA (even though the value of a new home is significantly greater than $50); see section 2(2)(f) of CPA, 2002, as detailed below. Ontario Hme Warranty Plan Act is enacted as consumer protection legislation to provide additional rights to homeowners (after the closing of the transaction), not the new home purchasers. This is a fundamental flaw in our legislative system, and new home purchasers deserve to be protected against the unrestricted power of corporate homebuilders.  

On December 18, 2018, we filed the Statement of Claim with the court, but Mattamy failed to respond for 4 months despite regular reminders and therefore was noted in default. However, at the hearing, the Toronto Superior Court removed the noting in default and unconstitutionally prohibited us from taking any legal actions. Subsequently, all Ontario Appeal Courts denied our rightful to access to justice. To date, all Ontario Courts have failed to address the unconstitutional  endorsement that prohibited us from taking legal actions. Further details are available below. 

The petition is to raise our voices for a fair and transparent judicial system in Canada — a judicial system that respects the constitutional rights of individuals and addresses the power imbalance between individual litigants and multibillion corporations. Canadians deserve a legislation system that provides legal protection to new home purchasers and their contracts against unehical corporate homebuilders. We demand justice! 

We urge all Canadians to sign this petition to ask Minister Michael Kerzner (Onatrio's Solicitor General ) to deliver justice to the individual litigant by:

1.       Investigating Toronto Police Decision regarding Mattamy false evidence 

2.       Investigating the issues of adminsitration of Justice

We urge all Canadians to sign this petition to ask Canadian judicial systems and Minister Doug Downey (Onatrio's Attorney General ) to deliver justice to the individual litigant by:

1.       Revoking the decisions from all levels of Canadian Courts’ decisions, and 

2.       Processing a new proceeding including return of our deposit of $154.010 in a fair and transparent manner. 

We urge all Canadians to sign this petition to ask Minister Kaleed Rasheed (Ontario Ministry of Publice and Business Service Delivery) to protect new home purchasers by:

1.      Providing a reasonable standard contract for purchasing pre-construction house

2.     Revoking section 2(2)(f) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2002 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consumer Protection Act, 2002 

2 (1) Subject to this section, this Act applies in respect of all consumer transactions if the consumer or the person engaging in the transaction with the consumer is located in Ontario when the transaction takes place. Exceptions
   (2) This Act does not apply in respect of,

        (a) …

        (f) consumer transactions for the purchase, sale or lease of real property, except transactions with respect to time share agreements as defined in section 20. 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ISSUE #1: We (the plaintiffs) complied with the Rules of Civil Procedure and the Toronto Court’s procedures at each stage of the proceeding. We are seeking a solution for the prejudice we have encountered at each stage of the justice proceeding.

a)       The Master accepted Mattamy counsel’s unconstitutional request to prohibit the plaintiffs, without cause, from taking any legal steps. This infringed upon our fundamental legal rights and is in violation of section 12 of the Charter of Rights and Freedom.

b)      While noted in default, Mattamy illegally served a notice of motion to set aside noting in default and to stay in favour of arbitration, a motion record, a book of authorities and a factum. Mattamy was not entitled to notice or serve any legal documents without a court order or our consent when noted in default. Mattamy violated the rule 19.02(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

c)       The Master improperly adjourned a short motion to a long motion. The Ontario Courts later attempted to justify this as “case management discretion”, but we never consented to case management, and we never received any court orders regarding assignment to case management. This was not the master’s case management discretion, and the Master failed to comply with the rule 77 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

d)      Mattamy’s sales representatives provided false evidence in their affidavits and cross-examinations. Mattamy’s counsel, Michael A. Currie (LAX O’SULLIVAN LISUS GOTTLIEB LLP), changed the affidavits during the cross-examination. The Ontario Courts declined to address this, even though the Guide to Appeal in Divisional Court states that it is a criminal offence to swear or affirm an affidavit you know is false.

e)      The Toronto Superior Court ordered Mattamy to garnish and freeze our bank account in July 2022, but the Court still has not addressed our concerns (summarized by bullets A to D above), particularly regarding the violation of our constitutional rights to take legal action. 

f)        The garnishment orders were issued based on the Master’s order, but the Master never signed and entered his order. On July 8, 2021, the cost assessment officer, Richard Ittleman, attempted to settle the Master’s three decisions, but chose to omit the Master’s statement that prohibited the plaintiffs from taking legal steps. In doing so, Mr. Ittleman signed and entered an order that no longer reflects the nature of the Master's decisions. 

g)       The individual litigants’ legal and constitutional rights have been violated on multiple occasions in these proceedings. In light of this, it is important to reiterate that The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom trumps the aforementioned rules and procedures, including the Rules of Civil Procedure, and these issues pertaining to violation of rights should be appropriately and seriously addressed. 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As a reference, we listed all eleven (11) Canadian Court decisions. All levels of Canadian Courts have never listed the correct content and nature of these decisions.  

1.       On June 20, 2019, Mattamy brought a short motion to set aside in default and to stay in favour of arbitration. In his endorsement, the Master not only granted an adjournment from the short motion to a long motion, ordered cross examination at the outside courtroom, but also prohibited the individual litigant to take any legal steps. 

2.       On November 21, 2019, the Master issued reasons for decision. He granted to set aside noting in default and to stay action in favour of arbitration. 

3.       On January 30, 2020, the Master awarded Mattamy costs and did not correct his mistake of prohibiting the plaintiffs from taking any legal steps (as we wished to amend the Statement of Claim). 

4.       The above three decisions do not exist in the system at Toronto Superior Court of Justice as of February 28, 2020 and June 30, 2022. 

5.       On November 17, 2020, due to Covid-19 the Divisional Court delayed my motion for extension of time to file appeal at least 6 months, but Justice Penny dismissed this motion. However section 25 of his endorsement stated “the plaintiff filed a form of appeal within 30 days of that decision, thus indicating an intention to appeal.” Moreover, the plaintiff’s name on the Decision is incorrect. Date for the order Justice Penny signed and entered is earlier than his decision was made.

6.       On April 9, 2021, the Divisional Court dismissed the motion for review of the Justice Penny’s order in the Panel’s decision, but not all judges signed on the Panels’ decision. 

7.       On September 13, 2021, the Court of Appeal for Ontario denied our leave to appeal without cause. 

8.       On February 28, 2022, the Court of Appeal for Ontario refused to address our legal rights’ concern and continued to award Mattamy cost for the settlement of the court order without reasonable justification. 

9.       On April 28, 2022, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed our leave to appeal without reason. 

10.      On October 19, 2022, we received a paper copy of the certificate of taxation that the Supreme Court of Canada issued on September 27, 2022. Because the deadline of 15 days had passed, we were not permitted to bring a motion before a judge in accordance to rule 84(1) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada.

11.     On November 24, 2022, Mattamy brought a 20-minute motion to examine our assets before the Associate Justice Abrams. Mattamy sought $10,092.10 for this motion and filed 3 draft orders for different amount with Toronto Superior Court of Justice. The motion was adjourned to March 8, 2023 due to no court reporter for this regular hearing.  In the absence of a court reporter, the associate justice Abrams only had the power to make an adjournment. But the Court informed that the associate justice Abrams’s endorsement was not the case management decision.

On the other hand, if we had not shown up the hearing, the associate Justice Abrams would have awarded Mattamy the cost. There was no possible outcome that would have been favourable to us or allowed our concerns for the court procedures to be answered.  This court proceeding continues to be prejudice to us.

12.       On March 8, 2023, the Associate Judge Josefo issued his endorsement (2023 ONSC 1615). But there are several administrative errors in the decision and its order issued:

             (i)       The Associate Judge Josefo signed and entered an order    that does not exactly reflect the nature of his decision; 

             (ii)       The Canadian Courts have never listed the correct content and nature of eight (8) Ontario Court decisions including this decision (2023 ONSC 1615) 

             (iii)      The names of the plaintiff (responding party) on the decision, Wendy Wang and w. Li are not the same names on the order;  

              (iv)     The plaintiff’s responding motion record (responding  party) is missing on the order.

13.   On March 20, 2023, the plaintiffs sent a letter to the Associate Judge Josefo regarding several administrative errors in his decision and order issued, but the Associate Judge Josefo refused to amend the above errors, inadvertent or otherwise, in his decisions and order. 

14.    On November 24, 2023, the Court produced an inauthentic version of Master Muir’s Endorsement. Compared to the original copy, this “new” Endorsement is reconstructed with a date and Master Muir’s signature. When did Master Muir sign this Endorsement? Since Master Muir passed away in 2020, who signed this Endorsement for Master Muir in 2023?

For more information, please see this link: Canadian Court 11 Decisions + 7 Orders

 

ISSUE #2: “The administration of justice” in the judicial proceedings:

We sent several emails and letters to Toronto Superior Court of Justice, Ministers Downey and Lametti regarding “administration of justice” at the Ontario courts and the Supreme Court of Canada, respectively. Our letter to Minister Lametti, dated 2022-05-19, indicated that the Supreme Court of Canada had listed incorrect case information and changed our case record (file # SCC 40017) on their website. Our subsequent letter to Minister Lametti, dated 2022-05-29, outlined the false/incorrect information in the Supreme Court’s public news release from April 25, 2022 regarding the Judgement to be rendered in leave application. Our recent letter to Minister Lametti,dated 2022-10-28, pointed out that the certificate of taxation was issued based on incorrect applicable rules and we were not permitted to bring a motion before a judge. 

To date, we have not received any direct responses to our emails and letters, yet “these issues of administration of justice” continue to occur.

The letters can be found here: Letter to Minister Downey and Letters to Minister David Lametti

 

ISSUE #3: Mattamy breached the APS and illegally seized our deposit of $154,010.  New home purchasers deserve to be protected under the Consumer Protection Act, 2002

In February 2017, we signed an agreement of purchase and sale (“APS”) with Mattamy for our dream house. From 2017 to 2018, Mattamy unilaterally altered the agreed-upon design, floorplan and infrastructure of the house’s exterior and the master ensuite, but never informed us of these changes. In fact, Mattamy also removed the house’s signature bay window without our consent. 

In August 2018, we discovered the changes at the pre-delivery inspection. Mattamy did not have a valid building permit, as these structural changes (including changes to the first and second floors) were not reflected in the property’s building permit issued by the Town of Oakville. Mattamy refused to delay the closing date to resolve the dispute and noted us in default on the closing date.

 Mattamy breached the section 10 of the APS, which states: 

“The sitings, plans, elevations, dimensions and specifications of the Dwelling including architectural details and exterior finishes may be subject to approval by the Municipality (if so, indicated in Schedule T - Tarion). If any such required approval is not obtained by 90 days before the First Tentative Closing Date, the Deposit shall be returned without deduction or interest and this Agreement shall be at an end.

There was no proof of the Town of Oakvile’s approval for the interior and exterior changes by 90 days before the First Tentative Closing Date. Therefore, the deposit of $154,010 should have been returned to the purchaser. 

On December 4, 2018, rather than resolving this issue, Mattamy sold the property to another purchaser even though the occupancy permit was blank (copies were obtained from the Town of Oakville on November 1, 2018).

See link: Mattamy False Advertising, agreed-upon floor plan related documents and The Town of Oakville provided documents dated 2018-11-01

There is a large power imbalance from the financial, legal, and human resources between large multibillion companies such as Mattamy and the individual purchaser. Mattamy did not attempt to resolve our dispute, and illegally seized our deposit of $154,010. New home purchasers deserve provincially legislated protection against the unrestricted power of corporate homebuilders. 

UPDATE:

On February 9, 2023, we delivered our petition and our letter to honourable Kaleed Rasheed, Minister of Public and Business Service Delivery – A letter to Minister Kaleed Rasheed

On February 9, 2023, we delivered our petition and out letter to honourable Michael Kerzner, Minister of Ontario’s Solicitor General – A letter to Minister Michael Kerzner

On December 19, 2023, we delivered our petition and out letter to honourable Doug Downey, Minister of Ontario’s Attorney General – A letter to Minister Doug Downey

On February 06, 2024, we haven't received any responses from the Honourable Doug Downey, Attorney General of Ontario since September 2021, but we decided to submit Civil Case Conference Request form, the Case Conference Memo and along with related to documents including our letter to Mattamy dated 2023-04-02 to Toronto Superior Court of Justice. The Case Conference is scheduled on February 21, 2024. We ask the Court:

1. Revoking orders and Reversing decisions regarding award of costs to Mattamy from all levels of Canadian Courts
2. Processing a new proceeding including return of plaintiffs’ deposit of $154,010
3. Considering Mattamy’s false statements as contempt of court