text:
WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF THE TENANTS
This submission is respectfully made following the hearing of this matter that was completed held on December 6, 2019, February 26, 2021, and May 25, 2021, and in compliance with the interim order of Member dated May 31, 2021.
The tenants (Tenants) applied for an order determining that the Landlord (Landlord) gave a notice of termination in bad faith (T5 Application). The Tenants also applied for an order that the Landlord charged them illegal rent, did not pay the interest on the last month rent deposit and did not pay them one-month rent compensation under s. 48.1 of the Act (T1 Application).
Tenants' Evidence
The tenant, Ms. K, testified that Landlord called her on May 25, The Landlord informed the Tenants that she had already sold her house and needed to move into the rental unit by herself. The Landlord also told the Tenants that the next 60 days would be the Tenants' last.
The Tenants were paying rent of $1,730.00 a month at that point. They also presented a copy of the rental agreement with the Landlord dated back to October 2016.
The tenant, Ms. K, gave testimony that their initial rent was $1,650.00 and that Landlord never gave them a written notice of rent Nevertheless, Landlord increased their rent from $1650.00 to $1,700.00 per month from November 1, 2017, to $1,730.00 from January 1, 2019.
On May 31, 2019, the Landlord sent an email to the tenant, Mr. N, which he shared with his wife, Ms. K. Tenants presented the said email in evidence. In her email, the Landlord confirmed her May 25th telephone conversation with Tenants and stated the following:
"I'm informing you that I will need my property for my own family use, by our lease agreement the notice of termination is 60 days but I'm willing to extend to 90 days. please let me know if you want your termination to be extended, please respond to my notice by latest May 31st by 3pm"
The email's subject read: "Madawaska Ave/Main Floor". It had the date, May 31, 2019, at the top and the Landlord's name at the bottom. She routinely used that name while communicating with the Tenants: "Donna".
Ms. K immediately took steps to find a new place to live and then called the Landlord on May 31, 2019. She told the Landlord that they would comply with the Landlord's notice and move out on June 30, 2019.
The Tenants had found the new rental by May 27, 2019 and signed the respective rental agreement on May 31, 2019, after the telephone conversation with the Landlord. The fact of the said conversation is confirmed by the Landlord's telephone record (Tab L, page 85). Accordingly, the Tenants vacated the rental unit on June 30, 2019.
They presented a copy of the rental agreement for their new place at Centre Avenue in Toronto. The Tenants moved into that rental unit on July 1, 2019. Their new rent was $2,850.00 a month.
The Tenants discovered that the Landlord advertised the rental unit for rent at a higher price on July 5, 2019. They presented a photograph of the house's front yard with a "For Lease" sign. The date on the photograph was July 5, 2019. The Tenants also presented a copy of the MLS (Multiple Listing Services) listing that advertised the rental unit for rent. This MLS listing included, among other things, the following information:
Contract day: June 6,
Expiry day: October 31,
Monthly rent: $2,380.00.
The listing also requested potential tenants to provide credit, financial and employment information, payment for the first and last months and ten postdated rental cheques for the remaining 10-month term of the lease.
The Tenants also presented another MLS listing for the same rental unit with a contract date of October 5, 2019 and an expiry date of January 31, 2020. The Landlord asked for $2,350.00 in rent in that listing. It is noteworthy that the Landlord published this listing after the Tenants had filed their T1 and T5 applications.
The tenant, Ms. K, testified that she and her family moved out of the rental unit because of the Landlord's demand and the email notice dated May 31, Before the notice, they wanted to stay in the unit as it suited them well: it was close to their work and son's school. In addition, it was not a good time to move because of her son's eye surgery that required him to stay and recover.
Ms. K also testified that she researched the rental market before renting the place at Centre Avenue. The prices were high, and there was nothing on the market in the area cheaper than the rent they agreed to pay at Centre Avenue.
The Tenants presented the list of rentals available at the appropriate time and a letter of the opinion of Mr. Ken , a licensed real estate broker qualified as an expert. Mr. Ken stated in his letter that the rental prices for the comparable properties in the same area of the city were between $2,700.00 and $3,000.00 per month from April 1, 2019 to September 30, 2019.
Ken testified at the hearing. He explained that he based his analysis on ten properties similar to Madawaska Avenue and listed for rent in the same area at the appropriate time. He attached all ten MLS listings to his letter of opinion. The Landlord's legal representative subjected Mr. Ken to vigorous cross-examination. The witness responses were clear and convincing.
The tenant, Ms. K, also testified about the Tenants' monetary claim:
T1 application:
The Tenants wanted the Board to order the Landlord to pay back all amounts Tenants paid in rent above $1,650.00 a month. They also claimed that the Landlord did not pay them one-month rent compensation under s.48.1 of the Act and interest on the last month rent deposit.
The Tenants also claimed all portion of the increased rent for 12 months that was $13,440.00 = ($2,850.00 – $1,730.00) x 12 months, $2,000.00 for trouble and inconvenience and $1,000.00 for moving expenses.
Ms. K explained that the T5 application monetary claim was based on the Landlord's lack of good faith and dishonest behavior, distress and serious inconvenience caused by the necessity to move on the very short notice and within a very narrow period, and the time and efforts that her husband and she had to spend to move.
Landlord's Evidence
The Landlord testified that she did not consider her email to the Tenants dated May 31, 2019 as a termination notice. She did not want the Tenants to move. Even more, she wanted them to stay. Therefore, her email was a courtesy to the Tenants in case they wanted to end their tenancy.
The Landlord admitted that she sold her primary residence at Bathurst Glen Avenue only on February 15, 2020 or almost nine months after her May 31, 2019 email to the Tenants.
The Landlord admitted that she wanted to rent the house at Madawaska Avenue due to financial difficulties while waiting to sell her primary residence at Bathurst Glen Drive.
The Landlord also admitted that she did not move to Madawaska Ave. until after February 15, 2020. She alleged that the only person who moved into the house was her older son. However, she could not explain why he did that while the Landlord intended to rent the place out and advertised it accordingly. Landlord's oldest son did not give evidence at the hearing. The Landlord introduced no further proof of her son's residency in the house.
The Landlord insisted that her intention to rent the house at Madawaska Ave. was a temporary measure to resolve her financial difficulties. She asserted that all rental conditions she proposed to prospective tenants were designed for short rental. However, she was unable to explain what she considered as "short rental." The Landlord also stated that the higher rent in her MLS listings for Madawaska Ave. was due to the "short rental" conditions and furniture.
The Landlord did not introduce much documentary evidence during her testimony: telephone records, a one-page description of four rental properties she prepared on her own, and photographs of the Madawaska interior. Instead, the Landlord dedicated most of her testimony to the comparative analysis of four properties on her description with Madawaska Ave. to show that the Tenants rented her new place for too much.
T5 Application
Tenants' T5 application is brought pursuant to section 57(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (the 'Act') which reads as follows:
57 (1) The Board may make an order described in subsection (3) if, on application by a former tenant of a rental unit, the Board determines that,
(a) the landlord gave a notice of termination under section 48 in bad faith, the former tenant vacated the rental unit as a result of the notice or as a result of an application to or order made by the Board based on the notice, and no person referred to in clause 48 (1) (a), (b), (c) or (d) occupied the rental unit within a reasonable time after the former tenant vacated the rental unit;
This provision means that to succeed on this application the Tenant must lead sufficient evidence to establish it is more likely than not that:
The Tenants got a notice of termination under s. 48;
They moved out of the rental unit as a result of the Landlord's notice;
The notice was given in bad faith meaning the Landlord had no intention of moving into the rental unit; and
The Landlord did not in fact move into the rental unit within a reasonable time after the Tenants vacated.
In addition, section 57 of the Act sets a presumption that reads as follows:
57(5) For the purposes of an application under clause (1) (a), it is presumed, unless the contrary is proven on a balance of probabilities, that a landlord gave a notice of termination under section 48 in bad faith, if at any time during the period described in subsection (6) the landlord,
(a) advertises the rental unit for rent;
57(6) The period referred to in subsection (5) is the period that,
(a) begins on the day the landlord gives the notice of termination under section 48; and
(b) ends one year after the former tenant vacates the rental unit.
Notice of termination
The Landlord maintained that her email to Tenants dated May 31, 2019 was not a notice of termination under s. 43 and s. 48 of the Act. She argued that the notice was not in the form approved by the Board and lacked the required elements.
Section 43 of the Act sets out that a notice of termination must identify the rental unit for which the notice is given; state the date on which the tenancy is to terminate, and be signed by the person giving the notice or the person's agent.
The Landlord's email substantially complied with section 43. The email identified the unit, clearly explained that the Landlord needed the rental unit for her family, and indicated that the Landlord's notice of termination is for 60 days; that was the time set in s. 48 of the Act. The Landlord put her name at the bottom of her email. The Divisional Court considered this type of communication and signature sufficiency in Lev v. Serebrenikov, 2016 ONSC 2093. The court found that an email with the sender's name on it is a signed written (Paragraphs 24 and 25).
However, it is more important to consider this notice in the context of section 57 of the Act. Section 57 requires evidence that a landlord gave notice under section 48. However, it does not state that the notice must be in perfect compliance with section 43 of the Act.
This interpretation of section 57 would be consistent with the legislator's intention. Any other interpretation of this requirement will open the Pandora Box and allow any landlord to serve a tenant with the notice of termination for the landlord's personal needs, make the tenant leave, and then escape liability based on the defects of his/her own notice.
The Landlord's attempt to portray her May 31, 2019 email as something else but a demand to vacate the unit as her family needs it withstands no objective semantic, common sense or legal analysis. The plain language of the email speaks for itself.
As such, Tenants respectfully submit that there is sufficient proof that the Landlord served them with the notice under section 48 of the Act.
Tenants moved out as a result of the notice
It is unclear if the Landlord disputes that the Tenants moved out based on her notice. She seems to imply that Tenants could have different agendas and wanted to terminate the tenancy irrespectively. However, the Landlord introduced no evidence in this regard. Nor did she clearly explain her opinion.
The Tenants consistently maintained that Landlord's written notice and verbal demands were the only reason they moved out. Ms. K provided sufficient and credible testimony regarding this issue. She explained why they wanted to stay in the unit.
It has been established that the Landlord advertised the unit for rent in 5 days after giving the termination notice. Therefore, the burden to prove that she acted in good faith shifted to her under s.57(6) of the Act.
Nevertheless, the Landlord provided no credible explanation or evidence of material change in her circumstances between May 31 and June 6, 2019, which made her change her intention from moving into to renting out the rental unit. June 6, 2019 was when she advertised the unit for rent on MLS for the first time.
In addition to that, Landlord testified that she put her primary residence at Bathurst Glen Dr. on sale at the time. She intended to move into the rental unit when her primary residence was sold.
However, she provided no evidence of whether she had an agreement to purchase and sell her primary residence at the time of the notice. The Landlord only stated that she sold it on February 15, 2020. It happened almost nine months after the notice and more than two months after the first hearing day of the Tenants' application.
Under such circumstances, on May 31, 2019, the Landlord could not be and was not reasonably certain that her efforts to sell her primary residence would result in a completed sale and her consequent moving to Madawaska Avenue within a reasonable time. Her further testimony confirmed just that. She admitted moving to the unit after February 15, 2020. It was the day when Landlord completed the sale of her primary residence.
As such, the Tenants respectfully submit that the Landlord gave notice under section 48 of the Act in bad faith.
Did Landlord move in the rental unit within reasonable time?
The Landlord's admission that she moved into the rental unit almost nine months after May 31, 2019 proves the final point required under s. 57(1)(a) of the Act. Nine months is not a reasonable time to move in.
The Landlord alleged that her oldest son moved into the rental unit within a reasonable time. However, as it was argued above, the Landlord provided no sufficient explanation why he was the only member of her family relocating to Madawaska Ave. Also, she could not explain why her son moved there while she advertised the place for rent. In June 2019, the Landlord offered it to prospective tenants for the next 12 months. She did it again in October 2019. The son did not appear before the Board to give evidence.
In general, the entire Landlord's testimony was not consistent with the documentary evidence and lacked common sense. It did not reasonably explain apparent contradictions between the documents and her statements at the hearing.
It is respectfully submitted that the tenant's, K, testimony and documentary evidence buttressed the presumption that Landlord gave the notice in bad faith. The Landlord's testimony, especially in the absence of her son, was insufficient to overcome the presumption operating against her position.
Subsection 57(3) of the Act provides that should a tenant be successful, the Board may order the landlord to pay all or any portion of any increased rent that the former tenant has incurred or will incur for a period of one year after vacating the rental unit and reasonable out-of-pocket moving, storage and other like expenses that the former tenant has incurred or will incur, and any other order that the Board may consider appropriate.
The Landlord did not dispute that the Tenants paid $2,850.00 for their new rental unit. However, the Landlord tried to argue that the new unit is not comparable with Madawaska Ave. The Landlord produced a one-page description of four properties. She made the long and convoluted argument that some specific characteristics of those properties are similar to Madawaska Avenue and that the Tenants should have rented her new place for a lower price.
The Tenants presented a detailed opinion letter of a licensed real estate broker, Ken, who also personally testified and was cross-examined at the hearing.
The Tenants respectfully ask the Board to accept Mr. Ken' evidence over Landlord's evidence for the following reasons:
Mr. Ken' analysis of the rental prices in the area is based on a larger number of diverse properties. There were ten properties versus the Landlord's four.
All properties he analyzed as comparables were available for rent during the summer and the beginning of fall 2019. There was only one such property on the Landlord's list with a contract date on July 26, 2019.
His analysis was based on broader characteristics of the comparable properties.
Despite his status as a broker of record for Ms. Ken, a sale representative in his brokerage, Mr. Ken had much less personal interest in the outcome of the hearing and, therefore, much more limited bias, if there was any at all.
Mr. Ken' expert qualification was subject to verification at the hearing.
The tenant, Ms. K, also testified that she conducted a thorough search for a new rental for her family. She stated that Centre Avenue was the cheapest available alternative in the same area at the end of May 2019.
The Tenants respectfully submit that The Board should not accept the Landlord's argument that they had a hypothetical option to rent a new place for the same or slightly higher price. The rental market is too complex and volatile.
As such, the Tenants ask the Board to grant their full portion of the increased rent for 12-month which is $13,440.00.
The Tenants did not produce any documentary evidence to confirm their moving expenses and quantify their claim for troubles and inconvenience. However, Ms. K delivered credible testimony about how unexpected and upsetting the Landlord's request to vacate was and how much time and effort they invested in finding a new place and moving there within such a short period.
As such, the Tenants ask the Board to grant their claim for $1,000.00 moving expenses and $2,000.00 for troubles and inconvenience.
Relevant provisions of the Act:
Notice of rent increase required
(1) A landlord shall not increase the rent charged to a tenant for a rental unit without first giving the tenant at least 90 days written notice of the landlord's intention to do so.
Increase void without notice
(4) An increase in rent is void if the landlord has not given the notice required by this section, and the landlord must give a new notice before the landlord can take the increase.
Money collected illegally
(1) A tenant or former tenant of a rental unit may apply to the Board for an order that the landlord, superintendent or agent of the landlord pay to the tenant any money the person collected or retained in contravention of this Act or the Tenant Protection Act, 1997.
Time limitation
(4) No order shall be made under this section with respect to an application filed more than one year after the person collected or retained money in contravention of this Act or the Tenant Protection Act, 1997.
Rent deemed lawful
(1) Rent charged one or more years earlier shall be deemed to be lawful rent unless an application has been made within one year after the date that amount was first charged and the lawfulness of the rent charged is in issue in the application.
Increase deemed lawful
(2) An increase in rent shall be deemed to be lawful unless an application has been made within one year after the date the increase was first charged and the lawfulness of the rent increase is in issue in the application.
The Tenants seek repayment of the unlawful rent that the Landlord has overcharged since December 2017. Ms. K testified that they never received written notice of the rent increase.
The leading case with respect to invalid or void notices of rent increase is the Ontario Court of Appeal's decision in Price Turnbull's Grove Inc., 2007 ONCA 408 (Price). The Court in Price found that the use of the word "void" in the equivalent provision of the current Act, section 116(4), meant that the legislature "expressed its intention, in plain language, that a rent increase imposed without at least 90 days advance written notice to the affected tenant is of no legal force or effect. Thus, a rent increase rendered void under section 116(4) of the Act for non- compliance by the landlord with the mandatory notice requirement of section 116(1) of the current legislation is not merely unlawful – it is a nullity. It is as if the increase never occurred." [Price, paragraph 37]. As such, void rent could not be saved by the deeming provision of the legislation (Section 136(1) of the current Act). The Court held that section 136 simply did not operate "to render lawful a rent increase deemed to be void" under section 116(1).
The reasoning of this court decision should apply with respect to the consideration of whether the rent increase in this case has been saved under section 136 of the Act since The Tenants respectfully submit that their lawful rent at all times was $1,650.00.
The total rent overpayment calculated based on Ms. K's evidence at the hearing is as follows:
$50.00 per month overpayment from November 1, 2017 to December 31, 2018
($1,700.00 – $1,650.00) x 14 months = $700.00.
$80.00 per month from January 1, 2019 to June 30, 2019
($1,730.00 – $1,650.00) x 6 months = $480.00Total: $700.00 + $480.00 = $1,180.00
Tenants claim $76.72 in unpaid interest on the last month rent deposit.
The Tenants also claim compensation under s.48.1 of the Act that the Landlord never paid to them. The amount of compensation is equal to one month rent. If the Board grants Tenants' claim for the illegally collected rent and finds that the lawful rent was $1,650.00, Tenants ask the Board to reward this amount.
The total amount the Tenants ask the Board to reward under their T1 application is
$2,906.72 = $1,180.00 + $76.72 + $1,650.00.
The Landlord neither disputed the Tenant's T1 application at the hearing nor did she present any evidence to challenge it.
LANDLORD'S RESPONDING SUBMISSIONS
The landlord respectfully submits that in coming to a determination of the facts of the case, the Board should consider if any weight should be given to the evidence of the tenants in light of the fact that while under oath, Ms. K, clearly lied or deliberately mislead the Board on numerous separate occasions.
The landlord submits that as a result of the adjournment of the first hearing, she was given an opportunity to examine the evidence-in-chief of the tenants in detail. A review of the transcript of evidence submitted by the Landlord reveals the following,
At page 27, line 11, Ms. K was asked to compare her new rental unit (Centre Ave.) to the main floor of the bungalow she rented from the landlord (Madawaska Ave.). In reply, she lied to the Board by stating that the basement of Centre Ave. was unfinished and therefore, there was no betterment between both rental units. After the first hearing, the landlord discovered that the basement of Centre Ave. was in fact finished. See. Landlord's Document Book, Tab. C page 23.
At page 57, line 11, Ms. K stated that she signed a new lease on June 1, 2019 and that she accepted the offer on June 1, 2019. A review of the tenants' evidence submitted at page 13 (Agreement to Lease Centre Ave.) reveals that the tenants signed a binding agreement to lease Centre Ave. on May 27, 2019 which was later accepted by their new landlord on May 31, 2019. On June 1, 2019, the tenants signed an acknowledgment of receipt of a signed copy of the agreement and not an acceptance of the offer as Ms. K stated at Line 15, page 57 of the transcript. It is submitted that this fact on its face should support a dismissal of the tenants' T5 application due to the fact that the tenants fully intended to terminate their tenancy and move to Centre Ave. before they received the alleged N12 email on May 31, 2019.
At page 30, Line 24, Ms. K was asked when she discovered that the landlord had advertised Madawaska Ave. for rent. Ms. K replied that she discovered Madawaska Ave. for rent on July 5, 2019 when she "just passed by on the street". The landlord submits that this statement is both a lie and a clear attempt to mislead the Board. The evidence provided in the tenants' evidence at page 11 clearly shows that she completed a rental listing search on June 6, 2019 showing that Madawaska Ave. was listed for lease and not on July 5, 2019 as she stated in her testimony under oath. Further to this, the landlord submits that the tenants were well aware that Madawaska Ave. was listed for lease because they were still residing at the property and assisting the landlord with showings. See Landlord's Document Book, Tab H, page 49 to 55.
At page 35, Line 20 and Page 64, Line 1, the tenants submit that after she received the alleged N12 notice from the landlord, she believed that she would be homeless if she was unable to find another rental unit before the termination date. She stated that she believed this because she is a "simple sales representative and the landlord was high level like Supreme Court". The landlord submits that these statements were made by Ms. K in an attempt to mislead the Board and create a narrative that she was a victim unaware of her rights as a tenant and being taken advantage of by an unscrupulous landlord. After the tenant provided her oral testimony on the December 6, 2019, the landlord discovered that Ms. K had completed a 2-year paralegal diploma in 2020 and was well aware of her rights even more so that the landlord and the tenants' "expert" witness. This submission is supported by the fact that the tenants started to compile the evidence for their T1/T5 application on June 26, 2019 while she was still in possession of the rental unit. See Tenants' evidence page 11 showing the date that the research on Madawaska Ave. was completed.
It is submitted that parties who come to the Board with unclean hands and dishonorable intentions should never benefit in any way whatsoever in obtaining any type of relief at the detriment of the other party.
With respect to the Tenants' Evidence, the landlord responds as follows:
At paragraph 2 of the tenants' submissions, the tenants mischaracterize the evidence in an attempt to create a false narrative detrimental to the landlord. The evidence provided by both parties did not state that the landlord had sold her current residence. The transcript shows that the tenants alleged that the landlord listed her property for rent and was trying to sell Madawaska Ave.
Contrary to the statement at paragraph 4 of the tenants' submissions which states that the tenants allege that the landlord failed to provide them with a notice of rent increase. At Tab A page 5 of the landlord's evidence book, the agreement to lease evidenced in writing that the tenants agreed to a rent increase in accordance with the terms of the lease and the tenants agreed to pay the increased in respect of each rental period for at least 12 consecutive months in accordance with Section 135.1 of the RTA.
Contrary to the statement at paragraph 5 of the tenants' submissions, the email was sent to only one tenant and clearly does not comply with the requirement that notices must be include all tenants.
Contrary to the statement at paragraph 7 of the tenants' submissions, the "acknowledge of receipt" was signed on June 1, 2019 but the offer to lease Centre Ave. by the tenant was accepted by the landlord on May 31, 2019. Further to this, Tab L, page 85 does not confirm what was said in a telephone conversation.
At paragraph 8, the tenants sign an agreement to lease Centre Ave. agreeing to an annual rent adjustment.
Contrary to the statement at paragraph 9 and as set out at paragraph 2(c) above, the tenants were well aware that the landlord was trying to rent Madawaska Ave. because the tenants were still in possession of the rental unit when they obtained a listing report on June 6, 2019 showing the property for lease. The landlord's stated that the tenants assisted her in showing the unit. See Tab H, pages 49 to 55.
Contrary to the statement at paragraph 10 of the tenants' submissions, the landlord received a copy of the tenants' T1 and T5 application on November 25, 2019.
Contrary to the statement at paragraph 11 of the tenants' submissions, the evidence shows that the tenants terminated their tenancy and vacated the rental unit because they had made an offer to lease Centre Ave. on May 27, 2019 and not because they received an email from the landlord on May 31, 2019. The tenants asked the landlord to accept an early 30 day termination of their tenancy and the return of their June 2019 rent cheque. Further to this, the tenants provided no evidence whatsoever that moving had any detrimental effect on her son's eye surgery.
At paragraph 12, the tenants state that they researched the rental market before renting Centre Ave. thus evidencing that the tenants had an intention to move out in advance of receiving the May 31, 2019 email from the landlord. The landlord submits that the facts show the tenants clear intention to terminate their tenancy and vacate Madawaska Ave. when they submitted a binding agreement to rented Centre Ave. on May 27, 2019.
Contrary to the statement at paragraph 13-15 of the tenants' submissions, the landlord submits that Mr. Ken cannot be qualified as an expert. Mr. Ken was not an arm's length independent participant in the proceedings and showed bias in light of the fact that Ms. K worked for his brokerage. Further to this, his alleged market comparisons were substantially flawed for the following reasons:
he used only 6 comparables when there were much more properties available and admitted that he was not familiar with the size or condition of the comparables;
he failed to utilize comparables in the same style and size;
He compared properties to the entire Centre Ave. property instead of comparing properties to the main floor unit only without the basement of Madawaska ;
His comparables were based on the entire house with finished basements;
He applied a simplistic formula to determine value by stating that bungalows were move valuable than 2-storey residential back-split units;
He admitted that he is no longer an active salesperson; and
He attempted to mislead the Board by choosing the most expensive comparables.
With respect to the Landlord's Evidence section of the tenants' submissions, landlord submits as follows:
At paragraph 20, it was undisputed that the landlord was unable to lease Madawaska Ave. The tenants resided in the neighbourhood and were able to monitor the occupancy status of Madawaska Ave. Also, Ms. K was a real estate agent and able to review the status of the property on the MLS to determine if the property was rented. Since the property was furnished, the landlord's evidence that her son moved in after 1 week is reasonable on the balance of probabilities.
At paragraph 21 and on the balance of probabilities, it is reasonable to conclude that the cost to carry two properties without rental income would cause most individuals financial difficulty. Further to this, the landlord submitted in her oral testimony that her interpretation of "short term" was a few weeks to a few months.
At paragraph 22 and contrary to the statements set out therein, the landlord submitted a 109 page document book along with the transcript of evidence from the first hearing in support of her position. Further to this, it is submitted that most of the landlord's testimony was focused on the inconsistencies and dishonesty of the tenants' evidence.
It is submitted that at all times during the course of the hearing, the landlord provided the Board with cogent and forthright testimony that was clearly consistent with all the evidence.
At paragraph 24 of the tenants' submissions, counsel for the tenants sets out the evidentiary requirement to succeed on a T5 application. In the case at bar, it is respectfully submitted that the tenants have failed to meet the requirements.
With respect to the issue of compliance with a valid notice of termination under Section 48, in TST-07189-19, Member Nicola Mulima sets out the 3-part test under Section 43 (1) of the RTA that determines whether a notice substantially complies with the RTA.
43 (1) Where this Act permits a landlord or tenant to give a notice of termination, the notice shall be in a form approved by the Board and shall,
identify the rental unit for which the notice is given;
state the date on which the tenancy is to terminate; and
be signed by the person giving the notice, or the person's agent. 2006, c. 17, s. 43 (1).
Section 212 of the RTA opens the door to allow variations to the forms approved by the Board. Section 212 states,
212 Substantial compliance with this Act respecting the contents of forms, notices or documents is sufficient. 2006, c. 17, s. 212.
In O'Shanter Development v. Bernsteim, 2018 ONSC 557, the Divisional Court examined the legal definition of "Substantial Compliance". At paragraph 32, the Court states, "The principle that emerges from the Board's decisions on substantial compliance with the Act's requirements for forms and other documents, is that landlords must exercise great care when adding an addendum to, or otherwise altering, a Board approved form. Any information that does not comply with the Act may be found to be misleading and may render the altered form invalid."
In effect, the Divisional Court determined that forms that may mislead or confuse should not be considered to be in substantial compliance with the RTA.
In O'Shanter, the court applied Section 84 of the Legislation Act which states,
84 Deviations from a form whose use is required under an Act do not invalidate the form if,
they do not affect the substance and are unlikely to mislead; and
the form is organized in the same or substantially the same way as the form whose use is required. 2006, c. 21, Sched. F, s.
In the case at bar, it is clear that the email dated May 31, 2019 is not in substantial compliance with Section 48 for the following reasons:
the email fails to list the names of both tenants. In all cases that come before the Board, this defect on notices is fatal and, in all cases, result in a withdrawal or dismissal of the application;
The email fails to provide a province and postal code which renders the identification of the rental unit confusing and deficient;
The email fails to provide a specific termination date as is clearly required by Form N12. It is submitted that the statement "60 days or 90 days" is confusing especially in light of the claim by the tenant that she was unaware of her rights and was under the assumption that she would be "homeless" after the time period. In counting days, an ordinary tenant would not know if the first day would be May 31, 2019 (the day the email was received) or the next day being June 1, 2019.
The email is not signed by the landlord. Form N12 requires the notice to be signed by the landlord with the first name and the last name of the landlord printed. This was not provided in the email as the name of the landlord on the lease is not Donna.
It is clear that the email fails to comply with Section 84 of the Legislation Act and Section 43(1) of the RTA for all of the above reasons.
In the case at bar, the tenants allege that the Board relied upon the email dated May 31, 2019 and pleads that the email substantially complies with the requirements of Section 48 of the RTA. It is submitted that this would lead to an absurd result and lower the bar in such cases to the point that simple exchanges between a landlord and tenant could create substantial liability for the landlord.
In Lev v. Serebrennikov, 2016 ONSC 2093, which was submitted by the tenants, the Divisional Court examined the question of whether an email constitutes an acknowledgement in writing signed pursuant to Section 13 of the Limitations Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 24. At paragraph 21, the court states, an email acknowledging the debt with the individuals name on the email was a sufficient signature within the requires of the Act.
At paragraph 24, the Divisional Court determined that, an email can satisfy the requirements of s. 13 of the Act concerning acknowledgement. The issue is every case will be one of fact concerning authenticity.
It is respectfully submitted that the Divisional Court did not intend that the decision in Lev should apply to all other cases when it stated, "The issue is every case will be one of fact concerning ".
18. With respect to the question, did the tenants move out of the rental unit as a result of the landlord's notice? As set out in paragraph 2 above, it is clear on the balance of probabilities, that the tenants did not move out of the rental unit as a result of the May 31, 2019 email. Despite her attempt to mislead the Board, the documentary evidence provided by Ms. K herself clearly establishes that the tenants had a binding offer to lease Centre Ave. on May 27, 2019 thus showing clear intention to terminate their tenancy and vacate the rental unit before receiving the May 31, 2019 email.
With respect to the question, was the notice given in bad faith? It is respectfully submitted that the Board should accept the evidence of the landlord which states that the tenants requested an early termination of their tenancy in order to move to Centre Ave. This was a larger and more luxurious property with a finished basement. The tenants were well aware of the landlord's attempt to rent the premises because they were occupying Madawaska Ave. at the time the landlord listed the property for lease and was showing the property to prospective tenants. The tenant's testimony that she was "shocked" when she saw a "For Lease" sign on July 5, 2019 is disingenuous. As a result of the foregoing, there was no bad faith on behalf of the landlord.
The May 31, 2019 email states, "I will need my property for my own family use". The landlord currently resides in the rental unit and did not lease the unit to anyone else. Further to this, the landlord provide evidence that her son moved into the unit soon after the tenants vacated the unit.
For 8 months, the landlord was burdened with the cost of two properties and made her best efforts to sell her Bathurst Glen Drive property so that she could move her entire family into Madawaska Ave. The landlord relies upon the written statement of the neighbour that was submitted at the first hearing.
With respect to the tenants' T1 application, the tenants agreed to a rent increase in accordance with the terms of the lease and the tenants have paid the increased rent in respect of each rental period for at least 12 consecutive months in accordance with Section 135.1 of the RTA.
It is respectfully submitted that in light of the forgoing submissions by the landlord that the Tribunal should dismiss the tenants' applications with costs awarded against the tenants pursuant to Section 204(2) of the RTA.
ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
TENANT'S RESPONSE SUBMISSION
The Tenants, respectfully disagree with the legal arguments and interpretation of facts included in the Landlord's submission to the Board. The Landlord's submission appears to be an emotional attempt to counter major facts and evidence in this matter with the allegations of untruthfulness and the Tenant's alleged failure to actively fight the Landlord's own wrongdoing.
Paragraph 2a of the Landlord's submission
The Landlord relies on page 23 of Tab C of her documents to state that the Tenant's new rental residence has the finished basement. The Landlord proposes to prefer this document over the sworn testimony of the Tenant without further exploring the accuracy of the MLS listing in question. The Tenant believes that this is an unreasonable approach as exaggerations and other marketing tricks are common in the real estate industry.
Paragraph 2b of the Landlord's submission
The Landlord's argument here is not entirely clear. This issue was thoroughly explored on the first hearing day. The Tenant testified that on May 25, 2019 the Landlord requested her to move out. Ms. K started looking for a new rental immediately. She found a new rental opportunity before May 31, 2019. The rental agreement was finalized on May 31, 2019.
The Landlord tries to portray a situation that the Tenant had no reason to move out and that she, for some reason, intended to move out before receiving the May 31, 2019 notice. The aggregate of evidence suggests something different.
In any event, the fact that the Tenant tried to secure her new rental before receiving the Landlord's notice of termination is legally irrelevant as soon as the Landlord clearly stated her intention to the Tenant on May 25, 2019 and supported it with her written notice on May 31, 2019. Moreover, the Tenant's action fell within the requirements of section 16 of the Act, requiring the Tenant to take reasonable steps to minimize her losses and get a new rental after May 31, 2019.
Paragraphs 2c and 2d of the Landlord's submission
It is unclear to what printout of the MLS listing for Madawaska Avenue the Landlord refers. The MLS listing that the Tenant submitted in evidence online on February 20, 2021 was printed on February 11, 2021. If there was any controversy here, which the Tenant denies, the Landlord failed to cross-examine the Tenant or clarify it in some other way while the Tenant was giving her evidence. As such, the Landlord's allegation that the Tenant came to the Board with unclean hands is baseless.
It is more important, though, that the timing of the Tenant's knowledge of the Landlord's lack of good faith and intention to re-rent the property is not legally relevant. The Landlord's straight and/or implied arguments included in paragraphs 1c and 1d and several times in other parts of her submission may be summarized in the following way:
The Tenant was proficient in legal and business matters.
The Tenant had early knowledge of the Landlord's wrongdoing.
The Tenant had an obligation to confront the Landlord's wrongdoing directly.
The Tenant's failure to confront the Landlord about the latter's bad faith and intentions deprives her of any remedy under section 57 of the Act.
These arguments are not legally valid as the Act, in general, or section 57, in particular, does not impose an obligation on a tenant to doubt and investigate the Landlord's various actions and take pre-emptive legal steps to thwart them.
These arguments are not convincing, either. The Landlord speculates about the Tenant's mindset in May and June 2019, stating that the Tenant completed the paralegal studies more than a year after the relevant events. It is respectfully submitted that the Board should prefer the Tenant's testimony about her vision of the situation and feelings at the time.
Further in this response submission, The Tenant responds only to the Landlord's points which require such responses and were not sufficiently addressed in her main submission.
The Tenant's evidence on the first day of hearing may be summarized that the Landlord's message was that she either sold her house or was in the process of selling it. It was clear that the Landlord commanded the Tenant to move out as she needed the place.
The Tenant made an argument about the unlawfulness of rent increase in her main submission. The Landlord's reason that the rent agreement may eliminate the proper rent increase notice requirements is not valid. The Landlord's reference to s. 135.1 of the Act is not valid, either: this section came in force on July 21, 2020. It did not exist in May and June 2019. As such, the Court of Appeal decision in Price v. Turnbull's Grove Inc., 2007 ONCA 408 (Price) should apply under the circumstances.
Paragraph 3e of the Landlord's submission
The Tenant's agreement to pay a higher rent at her new place does not deprive her remedies under s. 57 of the Act. Section 57 is specifically designed to compensate the Tenant for the difference in rent.
Paragraph 3f of the Landlord's submission
The Tenant denies any assistance to the Landlord in renting the rental unit. The Landlord never introduced Pages 49-55 of Tab H in evidence during her testimony. There is no explanation of what these documents are, as well as who and when produced them. In any event, they do not include any information pointing out that the Tenant assisted the Landlord in renting out her own home.
Paragraphs 3h and 3i of the Landlord's submission
Once again, the Landlord's allegation that the Tenant's moving out had nothing to do with her request to vacate the rental unit and notice dated May 31, 2019 is a far-fetched argument that has no support in the facts of this matter.
As the Tenant noted in her main submission, the Landlord failed to overcome presumption set in s. 57(5) of the Act in the absence of the Landlord's son's evidence regarding his residence in the unit. The Landlord provided no proof of his occupancy except her own allegation.
Paragraphs 7 through 17 of the Landlord's submission
The Tenant explained in her main submission why the May 31, 2019 notice substantially complied with the Act.
The Tenant indicated at the hearing that the Landlord's telephone request and subsequent written notice were in no way misleading or confusing. She had no problem understanding the details of the Landlord's message. As such, O'Shanter Development v. Bernsteim, 2018 ONSC 557, does not apply to the circumstances of this case.
The Landlord's May 31, 2019 email had all information required under the law. The Landlord attempts to prove the opposite by running a comparable analysis of the blank N12 notice and email. It is not a good way to determine the validity of the notice. It should be done using the requirements of the Act and relevant case law. The main criteria here is whether the notice was confusing for the tenant.
The Landlord tries to portray her May 31, 2019 email as a simple exchange with the tenant (paragraph 14 of the Landlord's submission). However, this was not the case. The Landlord specifically named her email as a notice of termination. Please refer to the following phrases in the email: (1) "please respond to my notice by latest May 31 by 3pm" and (2) "I called Mila on May 30 to remind her about the confirmation of 60 days or 90 days the notice of termination".
The Landlord has never denied or argued the authenticity of her email and that "Donna" was her name that she used to sign it.
Paragraphs 18 through 19 of the Landlord's submission
The Landlord repeatedly argues that the Tenant somehow wanted to move out and that the Landlord had nothing to do with that. There is no evidence that the Tenant initiated termination of her tenancy for whatever reason. The sequence of events is clearly established:
The landlord called the Tenant on May 25, 2019 and requested the Tenant to vacate as she needed the rental unit for her family.
The Tenant trusted the Landlord and relied on her request to secure a new rental.
The Landlord provided a written notice of termination on May 31, 2019.
The Tenant confirmed receiving of and compliance with the notice by telephone on the same day.
The rental agreement for the new place was finalized after the telephone conversation with the Landlord on the same day.
The Tenant moved out on June 30, 2019.
Paragraph 22 of the Landlord's submission
The Tenant respectfully submits that there are no grounds under Rule 23 to exercise discretion and reward cost to the Landlord. However, the Tenant asks the Board to reward her cost for the unproductive appearance on February 26, 2021 as the interim order allowed her to do. The Tenant believes that the $500.00 cost is reasonable under the circumstances.
All of which is respectfully submitted on behalf of Tenants,
LANDLORD'S REPLY SUBMISSIONS TO TENANTS' RESPONSE
It is submitted that the tenants' characterization of the landlord's submissions as emotional is in fact trivializing the seriousness and far- reaching public record attack on the landlord's integrity and good reputation that has been established over a 20-year tenure in the real estate industry. The tenant, Ms. K, as a real estate agent and paralegal candidate schooled in the importance of ethics and professional conduct requirements is well aware of the destructive effect that her allegations can bring on the landlord's professional reputation and future livelihood. Further to this, the tenant, when giving her testimony, was cognizant of the consequences of her actions as they relate to Section 234(v) with respect to furnishing false or misleading information, Section 238(1) with respect to a fine of up to $25,000.00 if it is found that the tenant lied under oath and Section 204(2) with respect to paying the legal costs of the landlord.
With respect to the issue of the finished/unfinished basement, the landlord submits that the determination of this question of fact is a pivotal question in the litigation. As stated in the tenants' response to the landlord's submissions, K provided sworn testimony with respect to this issue being fully aware of the consequences of her testimony under oath. In her response to the landlord's submissions, the tenant "doubled down" on her testimony under oath stating falsely that other agents regularly provide misleading information or "marketing tricks" in real estate listings. The landlord respectfully requests that the Board proceed under Section 201(1)(e) and view Centre Avenue to obtain a factual determination of this crucial question.
With respect to the landlord's submission at paragraph 2b, Section 57(1)(a) of the RTA states,
The landlord submits that another question before the Board is, Did the tenants vacate the rental unit as a result of receiving the May 31, 2019 email. The evidence clearly shows that the tenants had formulated their intention to vacate the rental unit on or before May 25, 2019 when they made a binding offer to lease the premises located at Centre Avenue on May 27, 2019. The facts show that the tenants did not vacate the rental unit as a result of the May 31, 2019 email. The facts also show that the landlord did not cash the rent cheque for the month of June 2019 as a result of the tenants' request for an early termination.
With respect to Section 16 of the RTA, the landlord submits that this section has no relevance to the issue of this litigation as none of the parties are liable to pay an amount as a result of any breach of the tenancy agreement. The tenants' claim arises from an alleged breach of Section 57 of the RTA.
With respect to 2c and 2d of the landlord's submissions, page 11 of the tenants' disclosure documents clearly shows that listing search was prepared by the tenant, Ms. K, and "Printed on 06/26/2019 at 4:30:32 PM". This clearly shows that the tenants' actions were premeditated and designed to create the narrative being put before the Board in their T5.
Contrary to the tenants' misinterpretation of the landlord's submissions, the landlord submits as follows:
The tenant, Ms. K, mislead the Board by creating a false narrative that she was unaware of her legal rights as a tenant and was being taken advantage of by an unscrupulous landlord;
The tenants were fully aware and consented to the landlord's actions as they actively assisted and participated in the showings in June 2019. There was no wrongdoing by the landlord;
There was no wrongdoing by the landlord and if fact, if there was, a reasonable person would not expect the tenants to assist the landlord in showing the premises if they were actually fearful that they would be "homeless" on June 30th. 2019; and
There was no expectation that the tenant would confront the landlord since both parties acted to minimize the tenants' obligation to provide the landlord with a 60-day notice to terminate under Section 16 of the RTA.
The Act, in general, requires parties to act in good faith in accordance with Rule A7. Further to this, it is an offense under Section 234(v) to provide the Board with false or misleading information. In all proceedings, there is a legal obligation for parties to provide truthful evidence while under oath. Documentary evidence signed by the tenants such as the binding offer to lease on May 25, 2019 is prime facie evidence of intent and not speculation.
With respect to the tenants' changes to their original submission that the landlord had sold her Bathurst Glen Drive property, the landlord submits that the evidence clearly shows that the landlord was in the process of selling her Bathurst Glen Drive property and due to a slow market, was not able to do so until many months after the tenants vacated the rental unit.
With respect to Section 135.1 of the Act, the landlord submits that Bill 185, Subsection 135.1(5) Transition states,
This section applies with respect to an increase in rent even if it was first charged before the day the Protecting Tenants and Strengthening Community Housing Act, 2020 receives Royal Assent, provided the validity of the rent increase was to finally determined by the Board before that day.
With respect to the remedy of rent differential and notwithstanding the landlord's denial of any wrongdoing, it is respectfully submitted that the Board in considering the quantum of damages to be awarded to an aggrieved party should base its determination on the doctrine of betterment so as not to provide a party with a windfall when calculating damages. In the case at bar, the evidence is clear that the Centre Ave. property was of a substantially higher value than the Madawaska Ave. property.
With respect to the issue of tenants' assistance in renting the Madawaska property, it is submitted that on the balance of probabilities, the landlord's testimony should be preferred over that of the tenants especially in light of the fact that the tenants resided in the rental unit during the month of June 2019 assisting the landlord with the showings and there was no evidence by the tenants challenging the evidence of the landlord.
With respect to the tenants' submission with respect to Section 57(5) and notwithstanding the landlord's position that the email does not substantially comply with the requirements of a Section 48 notice, the landlord submits that her evidence with respect to her son's occupancy should be accepted on the balance of probabilities. Further to this and on the balance of probabilities, a reasonable homeowner would not allow a property to remain unsecured and empty for months at risk for vandalism.
The landlord repeats and relies on her submissions at 7 through 17 of the Landlord's Responding Submissions. As admitted at page 5 of the Tenant's Response Submissions, the alleged notice of termination had no specific date of termination as indicated as "60 days or 90 days". It is also important to note that the "60 day or 90 days" notice referred to in the May 31, 2019 email related to the termination clause in the lease and not to Section 48(2) of the Act. The termination clause at Schedule "A" of the lease required the tenants to provide the landlord with not less than 60 days notice and states,
The Lessee shall have to give not less than sixty (60) days notice to the lessor of his intention to terminate or extend the lease, lessee acknowledges that the lease agreement cannot be terminated prematurely before the lease comes to an end and the sixty day calculated prior to the last day of the lease term.
As stated in the Landlord's Responding Submissions, this was one of many elements that rendered the May 31, 2019 email ineligible as being in substantial compliance with the Section 48 requirements. Further to this, the intent of the email did not relate to Section 48 of the Act.
With respect to the sequence of events it is submitted,
There was no evidence of which party initiated the call and the landlord requested that the tenants provide her with their 60 day or 90 day notice in accordance with the lease agreement;
The landlord trusted the tenants and thought that she was acting in the best interest of the tenants by complying with their request;
The landlord provided a written request to the tenants asking them to provide her with their 60 day or 90 day notice of termination under the terms of the lease agreement;
The tenants non-response to the landlord's May 31, 2019 email is strange given the reasonable request by the landlord to accommodate the tenants' request;
The tenants signed a binding agreement to lease the Centre Ave. property on May 27, 2019 and the lease agreement was "finalized" on May 31, 2019 when the new landlord confirmed acceptance of the agreement.; and
The tenants moved out on June 30, 2019 without any complaint whatsoever and being fully aware of their legal rights as
ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTEDDATE: July 28, 2021


The Parent Portal is a powerful, easy-to-use, secure communication tool connecting teachers and parents. Using Pearson's PowerSchool student information system, the Parent Portal allows collaboration to improve student achievement. Up-to-date, online access to grades, homework, and attendance makes it easier for parents and teachers to accurately monitor; identify and accelerate student progress.
Below is Anderson School District Two's Acceptable Use Policy for the PowerSchool Parent Portal. Please review this information carefully. If you would like to use the portal you must go to the main office of your child's school to obtain a username and password. In order to insure security, please bring a valid driver's license or state issued identification. You will also be asked to complete a signature page stating you have read and understood the acceptable use policy and that you have also received your username/password to access your child's record.


text:
Augsburg Confession
by Joshua J. Mark
Unknown Artist (CC BY-SA)
The Augsburg Confession is the affirmation of faith of the Lutheran Church written by Philip Melanchthon (l. 1497-1560) and presented at the Diet of Augsburg in June 1530. The document attempted to reconcile differences between the Lutherans and the Catholic Church in 28 articles: 21 stating tenets of Lutheran belief and 7 rejecting Catholic teachings.
Melanchthon was the friend and right-hand man of reformer Martin Luther (l. 1483-1546) who had sparked the Protestant Reformation in 1517. Luther's 95 Theses, originally intended as an invitation to discuss abuses associated with the sale of indulgences, encouraged the widespread rejection of ecclesiastical authority in Germany and, once they were translated and published, in other regions. After his dramatic appearance at the Diet of Worms in 1521, Luther was branded an outlaw, but the belief system he had founded was reluctantly acknowledged by the Catholic hierarchy by 1530 since they had been unable to silence it.
During this same period, c. 1521-1530, Huldrych Zwingli (l. 1484-1531) had established the Reformation in Switzerland, causing further division, and in 1530, Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor (r. 1519-1556), called for an assembly at Augsburg to address the problem of Christian disunity as he feared an invasion of the region by the Ottoman Turks and needed his subjects united against them. Melanchthon wrote the Augsburg Confession (in Latin and German) to clarify Lutheran beliefs, including Luther's rejection of certain Catholic tenets, in terms acceptable to both parties.
The document was approved by the Protestant princes in attendance but rejected by Charles V and the Catholic Church through their Pontifical Confutation of the Augsburg Confession. Even so, the Confession and other documents relating to it became the central affirmation of the Lutheran movement, which was finally recognized as a legitimate religious entity at the Peace of Augsburg in 1555. The Augsburg Confession became a rallying point for the Lutheran princes of Germany, inspired the creation of other confessions of faith, and remains the affirmation of the Lutheran Church in the present.
Reformation, Division, & Diet of Augsburg
By 1530, there was no longer a single, unified Christian Church in Europe but, instead, fragmentary sects struggling to establish their own vision of Christianity.
The Roman Catholic Church was the only Christian authority in Europe prior to the Protestant Reformation, and earlier attempts at reform had been silenced as quickly as possible. Luther was able to avoid this same fate through protection by powerful nobles, especially Frederick III (the Wise, l. 1463-1525) of Saxony, and his effective use of the printing press to disseminate his beliefs and criticisms of church policy. In Switzerland, Zwingli was able to accomplish the same thanks to support from the city council of Zürich and his own able manipulation of the press. The result was that, by 1530, there was no longer a single, unified Christian Church in Europe but, instead, fragmentary sects struggling to establish their own vision of Christianity.
Catholics continued to persecute members of these sects as heretics while the different sects argued amongst themselves. Zwingli's movement had encouraged the more radical Anabaptist sect, which he then condemned. The Anabaptists were then persecuted by both Protestants and Catholics even as those two parties fought with each other, sometimes in armed conflicts such as the Kappel Wars. The Lutheran sect also struggled to form a unified front as various members parted ways with Luther on the interpretation of scripture and liturgical practices.
Charles V, a Catholic, recognized that the situation had already gotten far out of hand and any hope of silencing the reformers had been lost. He set aside his personal feelings about the Protestants in the interests of the greater good of protecting his territory from an invasion by the Turks of the Ottoman Empire and so sent invitations across the land for an assembly of the Imperial Diet in Augsburg to be held in April 1530.
Diet of Augsburg
Luther and his colleagues were suspicious of these invitations, thinking Charles V was preparing some sort of trap, but they were encouraged to go by the Elector (a noble who elected the Holy Roman Emperor) John of Saxony, who believed the emperor's concerns over unity were legitimate and should be addressed. Luther, Melanchthon, and two other reformers, Johannes Bugenhagen (l. 1485-1558) and Justus Jonas (l. 1493-1555), met John of Saxony at Torgau where they wrote the first draft of the Confession (known as the Torgau Articles), and then the entourage continued to Coburg where Luther remained behind since, as an outlaw ever since the Diet of Worms, he could have been arrested in Augsburg.
Melanchthon revised the Torgau Articles on the journey south to Augsburg and sent a copy back to Luther, who approved of it, and then he revised the document further through input from Jonas and others. The delegation handed the Confession to Charles V on 25 June, and it was read aloud in German. Measures had been taken by Charles V and the Catholic delegation to limit the audience who might hear the document, moving the meeting from the large city hall to a small chapel. The Saxon Chancellor and Protestant lawyer Christian Beyer (l. 1482-1535), however, read loudly and enunciated clearly so that, the windows being open due to the hot weather, each word could be heard clearly by the crowd gathered outside.
Augsburg Confession & Others
The Confession began by addressing the Lutheran understanding of the nature of God, which Melanchthon had carefully drafted to be acceptable to the Catholic delegation and Charles V. He had prepared two documents, one in Latin and the other in German, since Charles V did not speak German. Melanchthon focused Article I of the Confession on similar beliefs held by the Lutherans and Catholics such as belief in the Nicene Creed, citing the Lutherans' same use of the term "Person" as the Church Fathers, and listing the same groups held as enemies of the faith by both parties. Article I states:
Our Churches, with common consent, do teach that the decree of the Council of Nicaea concerning the Unity of the Divine Essence and concerning the Three Persons, is true and to be believed without any doubting; that is to say, there is one Divine Essence which is called and which is God; eternal, without body, without parts, of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness, the Maker and Preserver of all things, visible and invisible; and yet there are three Persons, of the same essence and power, who are also coeternal, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. And the term "person" they use as the Fathers have used it, to signify, not a part or quality in another, but that which subsists of itself. They condemn all heresies which have sprung up against this article, as the Manichaeans, who assumed two principles, one Good and the other Evil; also the Valentinians, Arians, Eunomians, Mohammedans, and all such. They also condemn the Samosatenes, old and new, who, contending that there is but one Person, sophistically and impiously argue that the Word and the Holy Ghost are not distinct Persons, but that "Word" signifies a spoken word and "Spirit" signifies motion in created things.
The whole of the Augsburg Confession was written to address all aspects of the Lutheran faith and, Melanchthon hoped, to be acceptable to both Protestants and Catholics, even though it was already understood that Charles V and the Catholic delegation would almost surely reject it. The whole document is comprised of 28 articles, divided between 21 theses on Lutheran belief and 7 antitheses criticizing Catholic doctrine:
Art. I. Of God
Art. II. Of Original Sin
Art. III. Of the Son of God
Art. IV. Of Justification
Art. V. Of the Ministry
Art. VI. Of New Obedience
Art. VII. Of the Church
Art. VIII. What the Church Is
Art. IX. Of Baptism
Art. X. Of the Lord's Supper
Art. XI. Of Confession
Art. XII. Of Repentance
Art. XIII. Of the Use of the Sacraments
Art. XIV. Of Ecclesiastical Order
Art. XV. Of Ecclesiastical Usages
Art. XVI. Of Civil Affairs
Art. XVII. Of Christ's Return to Judgment
Art. XVIII. Of Free Will
Art. XIX. Of the Cause of Sin
Art. XX. Of Good Works
Art. XXI. Of the Worship of the Saints
Art. XXII. Of Both Kinds in the Sacrament
Art. XXIII. Of the Marriage of Priests
Art. XXIV. Of the Mass
Art. XXV. Of Confession
Art. XXVI. Of the Distinction of Meats
Art. XXVII. Of Monastic Vows
Art. XXVIII. Of Ecclesiastical Power
Article XXII began the criticisms and rejection of Catholic tenets, and Melanchthon added a concluding section in which he invited contribution and discussion of the articles, stating, "If there is anything that anyone might desire in this Confession, we are ready, God willing, to present ampler information according to the Scriptures." The German and Latin copies of the Confession were accepted by Charles V and the Diet after the document was read.
Philip Melanchthon Medal
Friedrich Hagenauer (Copyright)
Other confessions were also brought before Charles V at Augsburg, the Tetrapolitan Confession (also known as the Strasbourg Confession), which sought to unite Lutheran and Zwinglian beliefs, written by the reformers Martin Bucer (l. 1491-1551) and Wolfgang Cupito (l. c. 1478-1541), and Zwingli's Confession to the Emperor Charles, written by Zwingli himself. Both of these were ignored by the Diet as they seem to have been considered poorer versions of Melanchthon's work and, in Zwingli's case, purposefully divisive. The Catholic priest and theologian Johann Eck (l. 1486-1543), who had debated Luther at Leipzig in 1519, wrote a refutation of Zwingli's Confession dismissing him as a threat to Christian unity who had already caused greater harm than the Turks or Huns. The Tetrapolitan ("four-city") Confession received no response at all.
Reaction of Luther & the Church
Luther, still at Coburg, became increasingly agitated at receiving no word from Melanchthon and the others prior to the presentation of the Confession, and when he finally did hear from them, he criticized Melanchthon for compromise. Scholar Lyndal Roper comments:
Luther was sent the confession only after it had been presented to the emperor and he complained that if he had written it, he would not have made so many concessions. He dashed off a letter that started by congratulating Melanchthon but then objected that he was going against Holy Scripture because Christ is the stone that the builders cast aside, that is, he should expect to be despised and cast aside. There was little else he [Luther] could do now. He saw himself as an unrecognized war hero. (321-322)
Charles V commissioned a refutation of the Augsburg Confession from the Catholic delegation, including Johann Eck, which was read to the Imperial Diet on 3 August but only to the secular attendees; the evangelical Protestants and especially Luther's delegation were not given a copy. As Roper notes, "The imperial side sought to prevent at all costs a theological dispute that Luther might win" (322). Afterwards, the two sides entered into negotiations to reach some mutual agreement and establish the unity Charles V had convened the assembly to accomplish. Melanchthon repeatedly wrote Luther for advice but received no answer. Roper elaborates:
[The delegation] needed urgently to know where they might compromise. Everything had been discussed in advance at the meeting of Luther and his companions at Torgau, Melanchthon conceded, but real-life encounters were always unpredictable. What was essential, and what could be negotiated? Luther, incensed by feeling that he had been ignored for several weeks, now took the opportunity to sulk. He sent word that he was furious with the Wittenberg delegation, but otherwise refused to respond. (322)
Melanchthon had incorporated Luther's suggestions on the Confession earlier but now was forced to revise and edit it on his own. Luther seems to have felt he was being sidelined in the movement he had established and led, and when he did finally respond to Melanchthon's letters, it was largely to criticize him for weakness in standing up for the faith. He encouraged Melanchthon to "remain firm, to be a man and act in a manly way" as Luther claimed he himself would do if he were at Augsburg (Roper, 327). Melanchthon was not only dealing with the negotiations and revisions of the Confession but also with stories of "signs and portents" which each side was interpreting as messages from God favoring their view and condemning their opponents.
Sergio Andres Segovia (Public Domain)
Negotiations finally failed completely in September, and the emperor adjourned the Diet of Augsburg on the 23rd. Both sides had been willing to compromise to provide Charles V with the religious unity he had sought, but neither trusted the other to keep their word. Roper explains:
What finally kept the two sides apart was the absence of trust – on marriage, the sacraments, and other issues, the evangelicals simply did not believe that the Catholics meant what they said, or that they would keep their word. They feared that concessions would lead to their being crushed at a Church council that would be held outside Germany and set up to defeat them. The result was not inevitable, but rather a narrowly missed opportunity to prevent the splitting of the Catholic Church. This was why negotiations continued for so long, with one committee succeeding another, and why Charles had been willing to countenance ever more attempts to reach agreement. (330)
Roper, among other scholars, notes that, had negotiations been left entirely up to Melanchthon, an agreement might have been reached. Melanchthon, however, had to answer to Luther, who insisted there was no room for compromise and that Lutheran tenets, representing true Christianity, must triumph over the false teachings and policies of the Catholic Church. Melanchthon left Augsburg with the Confession having failed in his stated goal, and later stories of the 'rift' between Luther and Melanchthon – exaggerated as the years went on, and even up to the present day – date from this event.
The failed attempts at compromise and unity at Augsburg and the Protestant concern over an attack on German cities by Charles V and a Catholic coalition led to the establishment of the Schmalkaldic League in 1531 by the Lutheran princes. The league was a military alliance admitting any prince or polity who had signed or accepted the legitimacy of the Augsburg Confession. Membership included the understanding that armed forces would be provided, in the event of hostilities initiated by Charles V, to any in the league regardless of one's personal or political relationship with them.
Religions in Europe in the 16th Century
Simeon Netchev (CC BY-NC-SA)
The League helped establish Lutheranism throughout Germany while simultaneously dismantling Catholic establishments, confiscating lands owned by Catholic churches, monasteries, and convents, and providing the stability for the development of Luther's vision. Luther wrote his Smalcald Articles (in part), a more concise Lutheran confession than the Augsburg Confession, to assist the league in their goals. Luther's Preface to the Smalcald Articles exemplifies his view of the Catholic Church, and his refusal to compromise, as he accuses the pope of "lying and cheating," claims Catholics are "dreadfully afraid" of a free and open Christian council, and argues that the pope would prefer people be damned than admit any need for reform.
The Schmalkaldic League acted on Luther's condemnation of the Church and continued for 15 years while Charles V was busy fighting foreign wars, but in 1546, Charles turned his attention back to the Protestants of Germany and launched an offensive. The league had grown used to operating without opposition, and each prince regarded himself as superior to the others, and so when it came time to mobilize forces for military action, there was no unity of leadership and so no possibility of agreeing upon a cohesive strategy or tactics. Charles V won the Schmalkaldic War (1546-1547) not only through his own skill at seizing on opportunities but through the lack of trust and cooperation among the Protestant princes.
The Augsburg Confession, however, continued as the Lutherans' affirmation of faith, and, in spite of Charles V's efforts, Lutheranism had become so firmly entrenched throughout Europe that nothing could be done save to legitimize it at the Peace of Augsburg in 1555. The Augsburg Confession had influenced the others presented in 1530 and would continue to exert the same influence over later confessions. It is still recited in the present day by Lutherans as their official confession and echoes of Melanchthon's work can be heard in those of other Protestant sects around the world.
Did you like this definition?
Related Content Books Cite This Work License
Book of Concord: Preface to Smalcald ArticlesAccessed 22 Jan 2022.
Book of Concord: The Augsburg ConfessionAccessed 22 Jan 2022.
Janz, D. R. A Reformation Reader. Fortress Press, 2008.
MacCulloch, D. The Reformation: A History. Penguin Books, 2010.
Roper, L. Martin Luther: Renegade and Prophet. Random House Trade Paperbacks, 2018.
Rublack, U. The Oxford Handbook of the Protestant Reformations . Oxford University Press, 2019.
We want people all over the world to learn about history. Help us and translate this definition into another language!
Joshua J. Mark
A freelance writer and former part-time Professor of Philosophy at Marist College, New York, Joshua J. Mark has lived in Greece and Germany and traveled through Egypt. He has taught history, writing, literature, and philosophy at the college level.
Philip Melanchthon
Philip Melanchthon (l. 1497-1560) was a German scholar and theologian...
Martin Luther (l. 1483-1546) was a German priest, monk, and theologian...
Ten Protestant Reformation Facts You Need to Know
The Protestant Reformation (1517-1648) was one of the most significant...
The Protestant Reformation (1517-1648) refers to the widespread...
Andreas Karlstadt
Andreas Karlstadt (also given as Carlstadt, l. 1486-1541) was a...
Martin Bucer
Martin Bucer (l. 1491-1551) was a German reformer and theologian...
The Oxford Handbook of the Protestant Reformations
Written by Rublack, Ulinka, published by Oxford University Press (2019)
Christianity in the West 1400-1700
Written by Bossy, John, published by Oxford University Press (1985)
Martin Luther: Renegade and Prophet
Written by Roper, Lyndal, published by Random House Trade Paperbacks (2018)
Salvation at Stake: Christian Martyrdom in Early Modern Europe
Written by Gregory, Brad S., published by Harvard University Press (2001)
A Reformation Reader: Primary Texts with Introductions, Second Edition
Written by Janz, Denis R., published by Fortress Press (2008)
Mark, J. J. (2022, January 26). Augsburg Confession. World History Encyclopedia. Retrieved from https://www.worldhistory.org/Augsburg_Confession/
Mark, Joshua J.. "Augsburg Confession." World History Encyclopedia. Last modified January 26, 2022. https://www.worldhistory.org/Augsburg_Confession/.
Mark, Joshua J.. "Augsburg Confession." World History Encyclopedia. World History Encyclopedia, 26 Jan 2022. Web. 27 Jan 2023.
Submitted by Joshua J. Mark, published on 26 January 2022. The copyright holder has published this content under the following license: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike. This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon this content non-commercially, as long as they credit the author and license their new creations under the identical terms. When republishing on the web a hyperlink back to the original content source URL must be included. Please note that content linked from this page may have different licensing terms.
Augsburg Confession presented to Charles V at the Imperial Diet of Augsburg.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
mirlande-wilson
Mega Millions 'Winner' on Misplaced Ticket: 'I Haven't Looked in My Pants Yet'
Maureen O'Connor · 04/06/12 08:59AM
"World's most famous McDonald's employee" Mirlande Wilson—who claims she has Maryland's winning Mega Millions ticket but hasn't decided whether or not she'll accept her winning yet—almost definitely didn't win the lottery. But, damn, she has totally won the lottery-centric news cycle. Check out the latest nonchalant multi-millionaire quotes she gave to The New York Post about her supposedly winning ticket:
Maryland McDonald's Maybe-Mega Millions Winner Explains Nothing at Press Conference
Adrian Chen · 04/04/12 04:24PM
Mirlande Wilson, the Maryland woman who has dubiously claimed to have a winning Mega Millions ticket, had a much-anticipated press conference today with her lawyer. Did she finally show the world her winning ticket, brandished atop a little gold pillow?
Is This Maryland McDonald's Employee a Mega Millions Winner or Just Crazy?
Adrian Chen · 04/04/12 09:35AM
We all knew the Mega Millions frenzy would eventually turn into a depressing cauldron of sadness. A McDonald's worker in Baltimore, Maryland says she has the one winning ticket sold in her state, but her coworkers claim the ticket was bought as part of a lottery pool. Though she's probably just making the whole thing up.


Artur Małolepszy defended his PhD thesis 'Production and characterization of multiwalled carbon nanotubes and metal oxide functional composites for formic acid fuel cells applications' in 2015 at the Faculty of Materials Science and Engineering, Warsaw University of Technology. Since 2016 he has been employed as an Assistant Professor at the Faculty of Chemical and Process Engineering, Warsaw University of Technology.
cHe is focused on the carbon nanomaterials synthesis, characterization and searching for new applications for these nanomaterials in the field of biomaterials, alternative energy sources, electromagnetic screens and against infrared radiation. He is a principal investigator of the 'Fluorescent carbon nanodots production' LIDER IX project financed by the National Centre for Research and Development.
Artur Małolepszy is a co-author of more than 30 publications in peer-reviewed international journals. In 2013 he received a team award of the first degree for scientific-research achievements founded by Rector of Warsaw University of Technology.
Dr Kovács currently holds the position of an Associate Professor at the Department of Food Engineering, Szent István University (Hungary). He received his MSc degree in Food Engineering in 2003 from the Szent István University. In 2008 he obtained his PhD degree in Chemical Engineering from the Institute of Process Engineering at the Johannes Kepler Universitaet Linz (Austria).
Dr Ivashchuk received his PhD degree in 2008 for the research of the catalytic liquid-phase cyclohexane oxidation – he has developed effective catalytic systems for the process (binary system, catalytic complex solutions and individual catalysts). He is currently employed as an Associate Dean for Master's Studies for Educational and Organizational Work as well as an Associate Professor of the Department of Chemical Engineering, Lviv Polytechnic National University (Ukraine).
For ten years Dr Ivashchuk has been working on the implementation of 6 research themes of the technologies of organic products (research of catalytic oxidization of liquid hydrocarbons, sonochemistry intensification of catalytic oxidization of cyclohexane, development of homogeneous catalysts, intensification of diesel fuel with organic compounds etc.) at Lviv Polytechnic National University. In 2012 he has received an academic status of a Senior Research Fellow. His current field of interest is computer simulation in different fields of engineering and technology.
Marcin Małek studied Materials Sciences and Engineering at the Military University of Technology (Warsaw, Poland). He defended his PhD thesis 'The ecological method of ceramic shell moulds fabrication for precision casting process of aircraft turbine blades using nickel superalloys' in 2017 at the Faculty of Materials Science and Engineering, Warsaw University of Technology. Since 2017 he is employed as an Assistant Professor at the Faculty of Civil Engineering and Geodesy, Military University of Technology.


text:
Nvidia to cease producing new drivers for 32-bit systems
Harry Belafonte tells crowd at likely last public appearance: 'We shall overcome'
Teacher fired after bringing in dildos for a 'penis party' in classroom
Turning Point USA Activists Wear Diapers to Protest Safe Space Culture
Malta offers €1m for information on Daphne Caruana Galizia murder
YouTube cuts ties with vlogger over suicide video
Man wrongfully jailed for 25 years enjoys first meal as a free man
PlayStation launch new controller made for Donald Trump
Turkey Claims Syria Invasion 'Successfully Continuing' as Kurds Deny Progress
February 2, 2018 144 No comment
Resistance at the hands of the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) has allegedly prevented Turkish troops from advancing into northern Syria's Afrin region, reports Kurdistan 24.
Ankara's military claims their operation to invade the Syrian territory is "successfully continuing as planned."
Citing the Turkish military, Turkey's Hurriyet Daily Newsreports Ankara's operation to invade Afrin, dubbed "Operation Olive Branch," is a triumph thus far.
Operation Olive Branch is "successfully continuing as planned," the Turkish army reportedly said in a statement.
The news reports come as the Turkish military ardently denied allegations of civilian casualties and the use of chemical or biological weapons in the ongoing Afrin offensive, claiming it does not own banned arms in its arsenal.
"It is evident that these reports, based on lies and slander are spread by terrorist organizations and their supporters," proclaimed the Turkish military in a statement issued Tuesday, according to Daily Sabah.
Turkey launched the Afrin offensive on January 20.
While Kurdish media suggests the Kurds are winning, Turkish media report otherwise—describing troops loyal to Ankara as the victors so far.
Ankara claimed that Kurdish fighters had only killed five Turkish soldiers and wounded another 41 as of Sunday, but Kurdish outlet Bas News quoted an official from Kurdish-held Afrin as saying "at least 310 Turkish fighters" had been killed during the same period.
Now, Hurriyet reports that, since the Afrin offensive began, Turkish troops have "neutralized" at least 649 Kurds linked to various militias, including the People's Protection Units (YPG) that leads and makes up most of the SDF fighters.
Ankara uses the term "neutralized" to indicate enemies that the Turkish military has either killed, wounded, or captured, explains Hurriyet.
Turkey has long considered the YPG to be an affiliate of the Kurdistan Worker's Party (PKK), which both Ankara and Washington have deemed as a terrorist organization.
The YPG is the armed wing of the Democratic Union Party (PYD) that controls swathes of northern Syria, including Afrin.
"Some 649 targets of the PKK, KCK [Kurdistan Communities Union], PYD/YPG and ISIL [Islamic State] terror organizations have been destroyed," the Turkish army said in a statement, according to Hurriyet.
The KCK refers to an umbrella organization founded by the terrorist PKK that encompasses various political groups across Kurdistan, which covers territory in Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Turkey.
Noting that it is taking the utmost care to avoid harming civilians, the Turkish military added, "The only ones being targeted are terrorists and any shelters, pits, weapons, vehicles, and equipment that belong to them."
However, the U.K.-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR), a group that uses ground sources to monitor the ongoing conflict in the war-torn country, reported that the Turkish troops and warplanes killed 68 Syrian civilians, including 21 children and 12 women, and injured another 185, reports Iraqi Kurdish outlet Rudaw.
The Kurdish media agency notes that local health authorities have placed the number of civilians killed after 13 days of Operation Olive Branch Turkey's at 104, adding that warring faction has injured another 165.
Although Turkey claims the ongoing Afrin offensive is a success, the SDF claims to have prevented the Turks from advancing into Afrin, adding that the Kurdish troops had killed "dozens" of Turkish soldiers in the process.
"In the village of Khalil in the western countryside of Afrin, the SDF said they killed three other Turkish soldiers, impeding the forces' advance in Syrian Kurdistan (known in Kurdish as Rojava)," notes Kurdistan 24.
The Turkish military has stressed it has implemented precautionary measures not to target religious or cultural structures, historical artifacts, archaeological sites or public facilities.
However, the Observatory reports that the Turkish military has targeted ancient sites and mosques in the Afrin region.
"The Turkish military destroyed archeological sites dating back more than 1400 years and demolished the Salahaddin Mosque in the town of Raju, all while Turkish president [Recep Tayyip] Erdogan claims he defends Muslims," the monitor group said in a statement, according to Kurdistan 24.
"Another mosque was bombed in Jandaris on Thursday, the SDF reported," adds the Kurdish outlet.
Since the Syrian civil war began in 2011, the PYD and YPG have combined three Kurdish-led regions in northern Syria into an autonomous federal system.
Russian and Iranian-backed Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad has reportedly indicated he was open to allowing the Kurdish region to remain autonomous, as a component of Syria.
U.S. support for the YPG's fight against the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL) has strained relations between NATO allies Ankara and Washington.
Nevertheless, although the U.S.-led coalition has backed the YPG-led SDF against ISIS, the Pentagon claims the alliance has distanced itself from the Kurdish troops fighting Turkey in Afrin.
Rex Tillerson Begins Latin America Tour to Promote Trump Administration
Donald Trump to Republicans: 'We Fulfilled Far More Promises than We Promised'
Israel dig unearths prehistoric 'paradise'
By BN Report January 7, 2018
Theresa Mays been holding Trumps hand again and these are the only 6 responses you need
By BN Report July 14, 2018
Trump Declines to Declassify Democratic Memo, Citing DOJ and FBI Objections
By BN Report February 10, 2018
Hillary Clinton Claims Nobody Likes Bernie Sanders, Declines to Endorse Him
Trump at Davos 2020: America Is In the Midst of an Economic Boom
Sanders Apologizes to Biden for Supporters Op-ed: Im Sorry
Trump on Chinas Xi: We love each other
Guide to the Trump Impeachment Trial in the Senate
Youtube Follow us on Youtube
Markets (6,612)
News (10,034)
Trade (2,640)
Business News Report


text:
Q: text will replace the actual text in title bar I have tried like this for adding secondary  text  to title bar of windows form
                 formMain.ActiveForm.Text = name;

         <pre>
        +--+---------------------------------------+----------+
        |  | Main window title          [text]       | _ O x  |
        +--+---------------------------------------+----------+
        |                                                     |

...

I want to add the text like above mentioned image .but it does not working properly
but my problem is it will replaces the actual text in title bar with above secondary text . I don't want like this , I want to add the text to formain title bar on right hand side with out changing the actual text..
can any one help on this........

A:  formMain.ActiveForm.Text += "   "  + name;

may do your task easily

A: I think you are going to need to measure the form, and work out how many whitespace characters you need to insert in between the current form text, and the text you need to add to the right hand side.
You would then add your text to the current title.
eg:
string rightHandText = "[text]";
string whiteSpace = string.Empty.PadLeft( (your calculation for whitespace), ' ');

formMain.Text += String.Format("{0}{1}", whiteSpace, righHandText);

Note the += when setting the form.Text, this adds to the text rather than replacing it.

A: You can try
formMain.ActiveForm.Text += "               " + name;

But this is dirty and undynamic.
i don't know any way you can set the second text with right alignment.
If you really want so, I think you have to create a custom Window by your own.

A: this.Text += " text you want to add";

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream knew where to go for high-quality designs to create a limited edition t-shirt collection honoring some of their most iconic flavors. Our designers were incentivized by a $1,000 reward, a year's worth of free ice cream, and the chance for their design to be available for sale in the Ben & Jerry's flagship Scoop Shop. It's amazing what can happen with free ice cream on the line.
What could be sweeter than 1.9 million Facebook posts about your brand? Try 4 million engaged fans. Or, double scoop it with almost 8 million digital impressions. The mixture resulted in something epic. An unforgettable event, and irreplaceable merchandise for the world's most distinctive ice cream flavors.
Cap off your merchandise goals with a Creative Allies cherry, and a boat-load of creative sprinkles. As experts in fan engagement marketing, we get you the biggest scoop for your dollar. By leveraging our community of 100,000+ designers, we earn you a boost of traction to your brand or marketing campaign with minimal cost and the most choices.
Creative Allies has a successful track record of working with legacy brands – from musicians to consumer products – to find creative ways to keep fans engaged. For brands that have been in business for decades, it's critical to remain fresh and creative with marketing activities to keep existing fans engaged but also introduce your brand to new, younger fans.
The Creative Allies community loved creating art for this iconic brand. Here are a few of our favorite designs. All designs can be viewed on the contest entry page.


text:
Q: Django CMS simple placeholders outside of cms I have a fully developed Django app and decided to add DjangoCMS to give a content developers a quick way to prototype landing pages etc. It now lives under myurl.com/cms and works quite well. The guys can create new pages, choose a template and add plugins there.
When i saw the placeholder template tag I immediately thought about placing it all over the project, outside the cms, everywhere I want the product team to be able to quickly add and change content. I don't want them to create a new page for this from the cms because maybe the site has complex functionality which is only used once in this context (i.e. the search page).
So basically I expect to have static placeholders that I can place in the html part of the page using the cms plugins template tags.
I already found Placeholders outside the CMS in the DjangoCMS docs.
But for this to work I have to grab the related placeholder object for every view that renders a page, which would increase the amount of work to "quickly add a placeholder for this text" considerably.
Is there an easy way to do this? I kind of expect to not be the first to have that issue.

A: There's three types of placeholders:
Page placeholders - Declared using {% placeholder %}. These can        only be used inside a cms page.
Static placeholders - Declared using {% static_placeholder %}. Not bound to pages or objects.
App placeholder - Declared in your models.py using PlaceholderField    and rendered in template using {% render_placeholder %}
The rule of thumb is, if you're rendering a cms page, use a page placeholder, otherwise depending on your use-case use a static placeholder.


Buy American — and help Canada in the process?
In a move some say is better late than never, just last week the U.S. and Canadian governments signed a deal that allows Canadian companies to participate in state and local public works projects in the 37 states that receive funding by the $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. In return, U.S. manufacturers/suppliers from those same states will be given the opportunity to compete for Canadian municipal and provincial contracts.
Unfortunately, the deal comes less than two weeks before the deadline for accessing money of Feb. 17, 2010, although many believe this will be extended.
There are pros and cons to this arrangement. The Associated General Contractors of America has issued a press release, stating its belief that the deal "will accelerate stimulus projects and provide much-needed construction jobs" for many Americans.
What are the ramifications of this deal? Will it really bring more jobs to Americans, Canadians or both? For how long?


text:
Cops, Courts, And Crime Headlines For May 16, 2013: Holly Park Bathroom Attack, Cell Phone Theft Avoidance Tips
"In the federal district based in San Francisco, employees of the pretrial services and probation offices, which present information on defendants to the courts and supervise those on bail and probation, have undergone furloughs, as have those in the federal public defender's office, which represents low-income defendants."
Federal courts avoid summer furloughs [Chron]
"The 25-year-old victim was inside the restroom at Holly Park about 3 p.m. when two teenage male suspects entered and demanded the victim's cash. "
Man robbed while trying to use the bathroom in Holly Park [Ex]
"Lopez, who chose not to take the stand during his trial, had reportedly met the woman when she was 16 and agreed to tutor her in Spanish at the Mission Branch Library. Two years later, authorities said, the woman severed ties with Lopez due to his creepiness, but he carried a torch for her for the next eight years."
Bernal Heights labyrinth stalker convicted [Ex]
"Gascon's awareness campaign, timed to honor Elder Abuse Prevention Month, essentially amounts to pouring a bucket of water over the dying embers of a campfire."
Here Is How You Can Avoid Being a Victim of That Weird Ghost Scam [Weekly]
"If the bus is going to stop, stop what you are doing, look up look around put your phone down or put it in your pocket. And when the bus is in movement again you can go back and look at it."
Cell phone theft afflicts San Francisco [Golden Gate X-Press]
"Wells Fargo & Co. (WFC) must pay customers $203 million for manipulating debit-card transactions to boost overdraft fees, a federal judge in San Francisco ruled, reinstating a 2010 damage award."
Wells Fargo $203 Million Award in Overdraft Fee Case Reinstated [Bloomberg]
"During their foolish escape, police said, one of the boneheads used a skateboard to smash a large window of the victim's home on the first block of Amethyst Way."
These kids really don't like school [Ex]
"At least four cellphone robberies were reported on Muni buses or at transit shelters Wednesday, police said."
Muni robberies rampant Wednesday [Ex]