Stella Reddy's Story

When you are being Gaslit, you will go out of your way to validate your own meaning and perceptions by looking for evidence of what you know to be true. Below, are some of the facts I have that have validated the facts I knew to be true! It is truly insidious!!

As the poster says, narcissistic abuse is characterized by denial and repression of the truth. They repress reality and live in a make-believe world where they are superior and the rules don’t apply to them. They feel entitled to change the rules as they see fit.

Below, you will find all the “inconvenience” noted by the Tenants in their “statement of Facts” given to the Human Rights Tribunal for their applications against me where this word is showcased 34 times. This word is not included in any areas of the Human Rights Code, not even in the Residential Tenancies Act, as causing inconvenience to Tenants is not a thing I needed to be concerned about.

“Inconvenience” to them over the timing of entry, how I gave my Notices to them, and how long they had to wait around for contractors, even for staff, is not covered under any agency or Tribunal and it isn’t covered by any of their laws either!

• This would have prevented any more delay or inconvenience to anyone from having to return the next day to measure the outside storm window that needed to be replaced.
• Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy refused the Applicants payment because she just liked the idea of causing the Applicant and her family some form of inconvenience and stress. And/or…
• Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy just refuse to take the Applicants rent because she enjoyed the idea of knowing that it would inconvenience the Applicant finically and that the Applicant would have to run around every month get money orders
• It appears that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy has continued to modify her excuses for not wanting to accept the Applicants $121 cash payments for her remaining rent as a way to stress and inconvenience her.
• At this point the Human Rights Tribunals attention needs to begin to focus on what is going to become another ongoing pattern of Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy’s deliberately attempts to inconvenience and harass the Applicant and her family by whatever means possible.
• It also appears that besides waiting until after the scheduled appointment had passed before notifying the Applicant of the cancelation. Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy also enjoyed the idea of and was trying to deliberately inconvenience and stress the Applicant by rescheduling Terminix Canada the following day ( back to back ) without even consulting with the Applicant to see if it work with her, as it was under the 24 hour time period as mandated by the Ontario Residential Tenancies Act.
• It again appears that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy enjoy the idea of having the Applicant being inconvenienced and stressed while just sitting around in limbo, just waiting without having any idea as to what time anyone was really going to show up.
• It appears that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy inability and willingness to be cooperate, considerate and reasonable, along with her desire to continue to inconvenience and harass the Applicant and her family are founded.
• Not only coming home to the unit did the Applicant and her family have to be inconvenience, but also when they were leaving the unit. Someone from the family would first check through the peep-hole or crack the door slightly open to make sure that the elevator door was not open on their floor before opening the unit door to exit into the hallway.
• Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy could have very well just given the Applicant the owner’s last names, but decided that it would be more fun to try inconvenience and waste the Applicants time trying to figure out if what she said was true or not.
• It was just another way for Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy trying to inconvenience the Applicant like in the past when she refused to take her $121 in cash to pay her rent. And again this pattern of behaviour will continue to be shown throughout this application.
• But yet once again, it appears just like on August 29, 2016, Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy just enjoyed the idea of deliberately inconvenience the Applicant and her family by making them sit around waiting for 3 hours for an appointment that again only she knew was never going to happen that day.
• Note: The statement “ Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy just enjoyed the idea of deliberately inconvenience the Applicant and her family by making them sit around waiting for 3 hours for an appointment that again only she knew was never going to happen that day.” above will be confirmed as factual on October 20, 2016.
• Again it appears just like August 29, 2016, that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy enjoyed trying to deliberately inconvenience and stress the Applicant and her husband by rescheduling appointments for the very next day ( back to back ) without even trying to be cooperative, polite or have the common decency to inquire if the Applicant could be around that next day, as it was under the 24 hour time period that is mandated by the Ontario Residential Tenancies Act
• The Applicant stated “ I am forwarding this email to inform you that I will not be allowing you access to my unit ( 303 ) on October 18, 2016 as you have request to once again look at replacing the window that you have not been able to fix since I first requested it in or about September 2015. Once again you set the time and the date for your convenience, and once again you failed to show up as scheduled. In the future I will inform you when I will be able to allow you access to my unit regarding the window. As this is not an emergency issue, there is certainly no sense of urgency that would require it to be done immediately which would inconvenience me and family. ”
• It is clear that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy did not want the Applicant and her husband charged due to any safety reasons. In actuality she could not as there we 4 other working smoke detectors in the unit. She only wanted permission from Alto Properties Inc. owner to have them charged as another way to enjoy trying to deliberately inconvenience and stress the Applicant and her family.
• So instead of Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy trying to work cooperatively with the Applicant after all the inconveniencing and harassment towards the Applicant and her family. Alto Properties Inc.employee Stella Reddy decided that it was better to continue to inconvenience the Applicant by not repairing the bathroom ceiling, replacing the stove or replacing the missing outside storm window.
• Now Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy actions could appear as inconspicuous and not relevant to the Applicant Human Rights case, but upon reviewing all her previous actions since June 2016, it is clear that Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy was again trying to inconvenience the Applicant and her family.
• 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.
• 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.
•  Again this paragraph could appear as inconspicuous and not relevant to the Applicant Human Rights case, but upon viewing the wording and taking into context everything that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy has done and said in past to inconvenience the Applicant and her family. This email takes a life of its own.
•  This evidence supplied by Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy, in her own documents and words, along with the numerous amounts of attempts to inconvenience the Applicant and her family.
• So again Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy has not missed out on another opportunity to threaten and try and inconvenience the Applicant and her family. 
• Again it appears that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy again is trying to do everything she can to inconvenience the Applicant and her husband. 
•  It is pretty obviously Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy only motives for filing her bias and racially motivated eviction application where not that because of a the refusal of a lock change, where it will be proven that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy threw away the key from their Alto Properties Inc. lock box to create the tool that provoked the lock change as to inconvenience, stress and harass the Applicant and her family.
• It cannot be argued that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy harassed and inconvenienced the “ Black ” Applicant only because she refused to no longer tolerate Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy bias, bully, racist, bigot and childish games towards her and our family.
• ( Referring to Document # 79 ) – Again it appears that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy was trying to inconvenience, harass and stress the Applicant and her family. Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy stated that “ the tenant there cannot open the bedroom window, as the water splashes in the screen onto the inside of HER window still ”
• It again it was just another way for Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy to get enjoyment trying to inconvenience the Applicant and she hopefully was waiting for the Applicant not comply to the request therefore Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy could serve her with another N5 for interfering with another tenants enjoyment of their unit.
• If there could have been any doubts in anyone’s minds that Alto Properties Inc. owner, Alto Properties Inc. owner and Alto Properties Inc. Employee Stella Reddy are not always trying in every possible way to inconvenience the Applicant and her family at every possible chance given to them.

https://stellareddy.xyz/toxic-tenant-bullies-original-statement-of-facts

---

The Landlord and Tenant Board share on their website the Rules of Entry which was even updated on December 18, 2018, just after these Toxic Tenants were evicted and it shows very clearly that Notice is not required if permitted by the Tenant when asked, and it is not possible for a specific time to be given, but a “reasonable window of time”. I used a 3-hour window usually unless a lot of units were being done, like the Annual Fire Inspection and pest control, when I had no choice but to have a more open window.

The most important addition was that “A tenant does not have the right to deny entry simply because the time of entry is not convenient to the tenant. “.

Reading their “Statement of Facts” I see nothing there that is geared towards the protected grounds they applied under that include “inconvenience” either!

• Ancestry, colour, race
• Citizenship
• Ethnic origin
• Place of origin
• Creed
• Family status
• Marital status (including single status)
• Receipt of public assistance (in housing only)

All I see is complaining about how they were “inconvenienced and stressed” over having to follow procedures and allow entry when needed, no matter the reason, not that I violated their Human Rights. I see no statements in their facts that say “Stella Reddy violated my human rights when…” followed by a list of actions they have evidence of, or documents they have where it is written in there.

Below, I share more validated facts I have after the gaslighting I was put through...

The Landlord’s Right of Entry into a Rental Unit
Interpretation Guideline 19

Interpretation Guidelines are intended to assist the parties in understanding the Board’s usual interpretation of the law, to provide guidance to Members and promote consistency in decision-making. However, a Member is not required to follow a Guideline and may make a different decision depending on the facts of the case.

---

A tenant has the right to possession and reasonable enjoyment of the rental unit. A landlord has the right to enter the rental unit in certain circumstances when the landlord follows the procedures set out in the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (the “RTA”).

Legislation

Sections 26 and 27 of the RTA describe the situations in which a landlord may enter the rental unit.

Entry without notice

Section 26 provides that a landlord may enter the rental unit without notice:

• in cases of emergency;
• If the tenant consents to the landlord entering the unit at the time the landlord enters;
• where the tenancy agreement requires the landlord to clean the rental unit at regular intervals, the landlord may enter at the times specified in the agreement, or, if no times are specified, between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m.; and
• if the landlord and the tenant have agreed the tenancy will be terminated or one of them has given notice of termination to the other, the landlord may enter the unit to show it to prospective tenants between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. and, before entering, the landlord informs or makes a reasonable effort to inform the tenant of the landlord’s intention to enter. A landlord must make reasonable efforts, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case, to give the tenant advance notice in order to permit the tenant to be prepared for entry into the unit by the landlord to show the unit to prospective tenants.

A landlord may not enter the rental unit without notice to perform repairs even where the tenant has requested the repairs unless the landlord obtains the tenant’s consent to enter the unit at the time the landlord goes to the unit to make the repairs.

Entry with notice

Section 27 provides that a landlord may enter a rental unit in accordance with written notice given to the tenant at least 24 hours before the time of entry in the following circumstances:

• to carry out a repair or replacement or to do work in the unit;
• to carry out an inspection of the rental unit, if,
  1. the inspection is for the purpose of determining whether or not or not the rental unit is in a good state of repair and fit for habitation and complies with health, safety, housing and maintenance standards, consistent with the landlord’s obligations under subsection 20(1) or section 161 of the RTA; and
  2. it is reasonable to carry out the inspection.
• for any other reasonable reason for entry set out in the tenancy agreement.

In addition, s. 27(2) of the RTA provides that the landlord, or, with the landlord’s written authorization, a broker or salesperson registered under the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002, may enter a rental unit provided that they have given written notice to the tenant at least 24 hours before they enter to allow a potential purchaser to view the unit.

In any case where at least 24 hours written notice has been given to the tenant, the written notice must set out:

• the reason for entry;
• the date the landlord will enter; and
• the time of entry between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m.

Reason for entry

The entry must be for one of the reasons set out in section 27, described above.

The notice should provide as many details as possible with respect to the proposed entry, including details with respect to the repair or replacement or with respect to an inspection of the rental unit. In considering whether or not the notice complies with the RTA, the Board may consider whether details about the entry have been provided to the tenant.

Who may enter

The RTA gives a landlord the right to enter. A landlord’s agent, for example, a superintendent or a person hired by the landlord, may also enter the rental unit on behalf of a landlord.

Where someone other than the landlord or the superintendent has been hired to do work in the unit, the landlord or the superintendent should attend with the hired person to permit entry into the unit by the person.

Specifying the time of entry

Where a specific time of entry is known, it should be stated in the notice. Where it is not possible to state a specific time of entry, the notice may provide a reasonable window of time for entry.

What is a reasonable window of time will depend upon the facts and circumstances in each case. Where the landlord exercises control over the work being done and who is doing the work, the notice should be reasonably specific with respect to the time for entry. Where the landlord does not exercise control over the work being done or the person who is doing the work, the notice should set out a reasonable window of time for entry.

For example, where the work is being done by a cable or telephone company and the company specifies a reasonable window of time when it will be at the rental unit, a landlord may reasonably specify that same window. Where the same or similar work is being done in a number of units on the same day, a reasonable window of time may be specified.

In determining whether the specified window of time is reasonable, consideration should be given to the type and complexity of repair, replacement or work being undertaken, the location of the work and the extent to which the entry affects the tenant’s ability to use the rental unit.

The Divisional Court in Wrona v. Toronto Community Housing Corporation found that while a landlord is not required to specify the exact hour and minute of a required entry into a rental unit, a written notice providing for a nine hour period for entry to permit the landlord to carry out an annual inspection of smoke detector equipment does not comply with the requirements that the notice specify a time of entry between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m.

Frequency of entry

In carrying out repairs, replacements and other work, the landlord should make reasonable efforts to limit the frequency of entries to those actually necessary to accomplish the work.

The landlord should also make reasonable efforts to limit the frequency of entries in other circumstances allowed under section 27 of the RTA such as carrying out inspections of the rental unit.

If the Board determines that the landlord has made unnecessary or unreasonable entries into the rental unit, the Board may find that the landlord has interfered with or harassed the tenant or that the landlord has substantially interfered with the tenant’s reasonable enjoyment of the rental unit or the residential complex.

Methods of service of the notice

The written notice by the landlord for entry into the rental unit may be given to the tenant in one of the methods for giving notice set out in section 191 of the RTA or Rule 3 of the Board’s Rules of Practice.

Tenants’ rights and responsibilities

A tenant may remain in the rental unit while the landlord exercises their right of entry. However, the landlord’s right of entry can be exercised if the tenant is not in the rental unit at the time of entry.

A tenant has the right to deny entry to the landlord if the landlord has not met the requirements under the RTA relating to entry. A tenant does not have the right to deny entry simply because the time of entry is not convenient to the tenant. The tenant must:

1. not interfere with the landlord’s right of entry;
2. not interfere with the landlord and its agents; and
3. take whatever steps are necessary to provide access to rooms where the work is to occur, including safely restraining pets in the rental unit.

---

December 15, 2018

tribunalsontario.ca/ltb

---

The below is from the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, you can click the link and it will take you to a booklet on Human Rights. In the applications against me by these Toxic Tenants you also see the word harassment a lot as well. In HRTO, harassment represents “comments or actions that are unwelcome”. I wonder, who has evidence that they created websites in my personal name where they use the contents to degrade me and call me names? I believe that is very unwelcome!

I have studied this document, “statement of facts”, and have had others also study it and I can find no evidence of harassment I did to them. If anyone wants to read it and give me their opinions, please do so!

I admit, towards the end, I just wanted to avoid them, which I did as much as possible. There are no “insulting or degrading comments or actions that have been made” against them in person or in writing. I was nasty in my opinions towards them at times in emails during the HRTO process and I admit that freely, as they were very vicious and it got to me… I admit that freely too!!

These Tenants, with their actions of spreading gossip and rumours to other tenants, and on their websites online, were harassment of me and these acts did create a poisoned environment for me in my work and in my living there. Their comments and actions had an influence on how others were treating me too!

While I appreciate it isn’t nice to have contractors cancel appointments, it isn’t harassment, it happens. If a tenant wanted to stay home for entry, they have no choice but to accept that they will have to wait around. As it says, in order for them to prove I violated their Human Rights in any way, they have to have evidence that an objective person would see, not just their “personal views”. All aspects of their allegations were based on their own personal views, not on facts they could prove.

Going around the property and taking pictures of other Tenants’ balconies and parked vehicles only proved that there are adults that will do what they want, just like them! Where is the picture of their balcony showing their propane BBQ still there? Where is their proof that the BBQs they see on the balconies were propane? Where is their proof that I allowed these things?

They parked in Visitors for months, taking a spot away from someone who visits the property. They broke the rules again by deducting funds for a toaster oven! All they did was prove that there are other Adult Tenants like them, who don’t want to follow the rules and procedures put in place! I have no control over Tenants who decide to break the rules of apartment living, just like these Tenants did.

They can claim all they want that I was racist and discriminatory towards them in their tenancy, they have no facts to prove it, as there are none there to give!

They made the false claim I said “mulatto” and “asked where they were from” during a fantasy social interaction they claim we had at some restaurant (that was closed down by the time they said the name) “sometime mid-to-late June 2016” before I even moved into the building, not during their Tenancy. There are no claims of any words, in person or in a letter, where they claim I made unwanted comments towards them after I moved in to work there. They always went back to that fantasy of a restaurant meeting!!

At no time after I moved in to live and work on-site, did they ever bring up this meeting to me face to face either during that 2 1/2 months, and the letter they gave was very vague. That fake meeting was where they based their allegations of racism against me.

I spent a long time reviewing over and over the things I said and wrote, looking for anything that I needed to know, so I could work on it. I asked others to read and give me their opinions too! Being accused of such a thing was demoralizing and as a responsible adult, I will go out of my way to find out if it is true so I can work on it and eliminate that within me.

That is what normal people do when they are accused of inappropriate behaviour, they try everything to fix it!! It is the responsible thing to do.

Harassment in housing

Everyone has the right to be free from harassment in housing because of Code-protected grounds . “Harassment” means comments or actions that are unwelcome to you or should be known to be unwelcome . You have the right to be free from humiliating or offensive conduct that is based on one or more of the Code grounds . Harassment requires a “course of conduct,” which means that a pattern of behaviour or more than one incident is usually required . For example, a landlord’s repeated demeaning comments about how a tenant uses a wheelchair could be harassment in housing . However, one incident may be enough to support a finding of harassment where the incident creates a poisoned environment

Poisoned environment

You might feel that your housing is hostile or unwelcoming to you because of insulting or degrading comments or actions that have been made about others based on a ground in the Code .
When comments or actions of this kind have an influence on others and how they are treated, this is known as a “poisoned environment .” A poisoned environment cannot, however, be based only on your personal views . You must have facts to show that an objective person would see that the comments or conduct would make a person feel unwelcome based on Code grounds

https://www3.ohrc.on.ca/sites/default/files/Guide%20to%20Your%20Rights%20and%20Responsibilities%20Under%20the%20Code_2013.pdf

This is the last bit of gaslighting for this post today… KR & AR claimed that the Form N5s given to them were “invalid/illegal” and they were deemed such by the adjudicator with the LTB, trying to claim it meant the same thing. They do not!

With the applications to the LTB, there were 2 Form N5s given, one for denying entry to me for my inspection (and picture taking to eliminate further entry) for August 24 and one for denying entry to change the locks on Sept 1. The second N5 was deemed void, as the reasons were the same, denying entry. At no time does anyone call any of my forms issued as “illegal”, otherwise they wouldn’t have been accepted by any Tribunal.

No matter what gaslighting and projections these Toxic Tenants do, it will not magically make these words mean the same thing!

That means that the Caucasians Applicants Stella Reddy, Luigi Liscio and his son Anthony Liscio L2 eviction application was filed on was deemed to be an invalid / illegal N5 by the racist Caucasian SJTO member Kevin Lundy.

http://web.archive.org/web/20211022024349/https://sjtomemberkevinlundy.com/part-twelve/

Difference between Void and Illegal order

MALIK ATIQ USMAN

Advocate High Court

Published Mar 11, 2023

In legal terms, a “void” order and an “illegal” order are two distinct concepts with different implications.

A void order is one that is not enforceable because it is missing some essential element that makes it valid. For example, an order made by a judge who lacked jurisdiction over the matter, or an order that violates due process of law, would be considered void. A void order has no legal effect and cannot be enforced by the courts.

An illegal order, on the other hand, is one that is not only unenforceable but also contrary to the law. An illegal order may be issued by a person who has the authority to issue such an order, but the content of the order is against the law. For example, an order that requires someone to perform an illegal act, such as a bribe, would be considered illegal. An illegal order is not only unenforceable but also exposes the person issuing the order to criminal liability.

In short, while both void and illegal orders are unenforceable, a void order is missing some essential element to be valid, while an illegal order is not only unenforceable but also against the law.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/difference-between-void-illegal-order-malik-atiq-usman

I don’t let my mind tell me lies anymore… I know what I know and what I don’t I will go out of my way to learn.