Cause of Tenant Bullies Eviction

It was at this point the Applicant began to smell alcohol on Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy breath.

At this point the Applicants husband knew that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy had been drinking,

The Applicants husband went on to say “ you have been here all day, and now you want to show up at 3:30.”

The Applicants husband continued “ You could come here at 9:00am, but you didn’t. “

The Applicants husband replied “ You could have easily called and said can I come at 8:00am?, but you didn’t. Instead you do this 2 to 5 shit and have me waiting here all day. ”

The Applicants husband replied “ Before you left you could have come here. Instead you have me sit here all day waiting for you, thinking I have nothing to do. ”

The Applicants husband replied “ I will get in contact with the city and I will deal with it. You’re a damn racist, it’s all the black people you are giving the problems too, you’re a damn bigot, As simple as that, you’re a bigot, I will deal with your accordingly, you’re a bigot and a racist. ” and then closed the unit door.

With this now established why did Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy show up at the Applicant unit without her husband Alto Properties Inc. employee at her side?

Again we have more questionable and problematic actions by Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy who is again deliberately using the worse possible method of trying to get the Applicants bathroom ceiling repaired.

What was the purpose of Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy taking pictures? Was she planning to show her husband the pictures? Would it not have been easier for Alto Properties Inc. employee to just accompany his wife, Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy to view the Applicants bathroom ceiling instead of viewing the pictures her phone?

It again appears that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy was just trying to prolong the repairs and inconvenience the Applicant and her family again with the senseless August 24, 2017 visit.

It appears that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy believed on August 24, 2017 that the problem did not get worse since her yearly inspection over a year earlier on October 4, 2016. That in fact it MIGHT have just repaired itself enough that a contractor may not have been needed and that her husband Alto Properties Inc. employee could now repair the bathroom ceiling.

These deliberate and malicious actions by Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy once again clearly show again that she was doing everything within her power to inconvenience and harass the Applicant and her family.

Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy tells Suzanna Mlakar that the Applicants husband was “ irate “ even though he clearly was not.

Reading this email, Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy clearly expresses only her side of events. Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy’s agenda is clearly to have Suzanna Mlakar believe that the Applicant and her husband are being totally unreasonable and uncooperative. What Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy conveniently does not do is explain everything in more detail as to what has transpired in the past and her conduct.

It is clear that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy statements are self-serving and designed to inflict the worse possible light on the Applicant with Suzanna Mlakar.

It is clear that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy was expecting Alto Property Inc. owner and his son Alto Properties Inc. owner to come to her defence and help her. But the question here is, what did she want them to do?

Did Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy want Alto Property Inc. owner and his son Alto Properties Inc. owner to put in writing that they knew that she was not a racist and a bigot?

Did Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy want Alto Property Inc. owner and his son Alto Properties Inc. owner to scold the Applicant for making such accusations?

Did Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy want Alto Property Inc. owner and his son Alto Properties Inc. owner to give her permission to file with the Landlord and Tenant Board and the Human Rights tribunal and they refused to allow her?

What the Applicant and her husband do know according to Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy racist and bigot email is that she “ would love to take them to the tribunal and have an adjudicator see how they talk and the accusation they make against me. ”

At this point it becomes obvious that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy Obsessive Compulsive Behaviour or OCD is color motivated. She clearly stated that the ONLY reason she wants to take the Applicant to the Tribunal for a N5 – interring with the landlords interests and privileges for refusing entry and harassing the staff over how the repairs are done.” is to explain to the “ ADJUDICATOR HOW THEY TALK AND THE ACCUSATIONS THEY MAKE AGAINST ME. ”

Guideline 19 of the Board’s Interpretation Guidelines provides that a Tenant may remain in the rental unit while the landlord exercises the right of entry, but the landlord’s right of entry can be exercised even if the tenant is not in the unit at the time of entry. A tenant does not have the right to deny entry simply because the time of entry is not convenient to the tenant. A tenant may not interfere with the landlord’s right of entry.

The provisions in the Act relating to entries by a landlord to the rental unit are intended to protect the privacy of tenants in their own home, while recognizing the landlord’s need to enter the unit for specific reasons that are set out in the Act.

Tenants do not have control over contractors hired by the Landlord, and cannot negotiate a time of entry convenient to them as may be the case with homeowners who engage the services of contractors.

 If a tenant is not comfortable with having strangers enter his or her home when he/she is absent, the tenant must make arrangements to take time away from work or other obligations to await the arrival of the person who is to enter. This is inconvenient and can be costly in terms of lost wages if time must be taken away from work. In recognition of this inconvenience and potential cost, the window of time during which a tenant is required to wait is limited.


Discover more from Stella Reddy's Story

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.