Casual? Is that the word you're looking for

forCa- that's the word I'm looking for, it was casual.

So the, the people would buy the frontage, and then they w- they, they would leave the laneways in the back.

And then people died.

I was involved in one at King and Spadina where somebody died in the 1800s, and it was just, it was just abandoned.

And the city deliberately doesn't want those laneways because of the maintenance and insurance and liability, and the expense of, of going after, um, af- after the, the repairs and maintenance and, and snow shoveling.

So they just, they don't, they don't want them.

How can you have a situation where I have a laneway where the owner died in 1983, and apparently nobody else has taken over ownership?

That's not what got him, right?

Yeah, so here's the story.

They bought the house in Mississauga in 2021.

They actually used it as their principal residence.

They remained there throughout the period that he worked for the Raptors.

He became eligible for the worker rebate on October 15, 2022, and he sold the house in September 2023, and he applied March 12, 2024, before the government changed the rules right out from under him.

I'm being sarcastic.

No, no, it doesn't count.

Is it legal? Why should I be able to lie on my application to get zoning for a 16-story condo? And do you know that it's done a lot?

There is no way, no way on earth that this planning application could have been put in in 2020, six years ago, or the revised one without the permission of the registered owners.

The city requires the permission.

Whoever said from the Royal Bank that they didn't know anything about it or they weren't part of it, that's a complete fabrication.

That's a complete fabrication.

They had to have known about it.

They had to have signed onto it.

You do—why are you more willing to believe the developer than RBC?

That sounds like the lawyerly kind of argument that had Bill Clinton saying, "It depends on what 'is' is."

[laughs] You, you can't, you can't lie, and, uh, I think the problem in the Quebec case was that there, there seems to have been a written, uh, property disclosure statement.

Um, we don't use those in Ontario anymore.

Uh, I was violently opposed to them.

Um, but, uh, in Quebec, I guess they use that form, and on the form, it asks if there was any violent death or, or similar issue.

And the vendors said no, and that was wrong.

They should have either not answered the... not used the form, which I think is a silly form, but, um, uh, once, once they answered it, they're bound to answer correctly.

Maybe you could try a marketing scheme where you say, "We want extra for this house because this is a house that has proven if you're a bad guy, you don't want to be coming in here."