REPRISAL – All Personal Speculations of Toxic Adult Bullies

I am sharing with you today parts of the Reply for HRTO that were sent on January 1, 2019, for the applications filed against me by Toxic Tenants. Reading this now in its entirety, is very enlightening on toxic behaviours.

Writing in this manner is what caused these Tenants to lose all their legal applications. They proceed to spend so much time speculating, not showing any actual proof, of what they claim occurred. No one will ever accept a person’s “speculations” over someone’s actions, as facts.

“It appears” is in this document everywhere, followed by the writer’s subjective personal opinions. There are no facts shown here nor in the attachments that show what they imply with their words is even possible, let alone true! 

Looking back now this situation was very simple.

I was doing my job, it wasn’t personal to me. They clearly show their actions that caused their eviction, but are trying to imply we should have allowed them to do what they did!!

This document is all about whining about what he thinks other people did, why he thinks they did it, and questions the HRTO, hoping to sway them into believing what they say. They show no evidence of what he says others have done, just his personal speculation. 

Divisional Court even agreed they had nothing and there was no racism on April 15, 2019, and they were pissed off over that, yet, they still say there was, and they decided to ignore the HRTO applications they filed after 19 months after losing in Divisional Court.

Even though the Divisional Court states the Eviction was LEGAL, they ignore it and proceed to make the claims that it wasn’t. They show they have no respect for the rules and decisions made by legal processes.

I read this completely for the first time a couple of years ago when I made the Request to HRTO to find out what documents were accepted out of all the emails sent during those 19 months of the process. It was enlightening to see what little HRTO accepted out of all that was sent to them by the Applicants, KR & AR, as it wasn’t as much as I thought.

Hearsay, speculations, suppositions, and questions being asked, as written by them in this document, do not show that they were racially targeted by me, especially not for any “retaliation” they might claim.

They have never shown any facts, links, or any clear evidence that pointed to this as the reason they were evicted and never can, as I could care less what they looked like or what their family dynamics were. They were nothing to me when I was doing my job, just nameless, faceless, Tenants of 303. I didn’t get involved with Tenants and their lives.  

If I truly was this type of person, why did I just pick on these Tenants and no one else? They are delusional in thinking that they were important enough for me to risk breaking the rules to target for “illegal” eviction, as they claimed. This is just more of their arrogant thinking!

They want you to believe that I just picked on these Tenants because I didn’t like their “family dynamics” after working in the property management industry there for 16 years with no problems with other tenants’ “family dynamics”. They were delusional to me to think that I would ruin my career over them!

I did my job, as everyone does when dealing with people, by their ACTIONS, not the words that come out of their mouths, as I have learned that Tenants lie to try and get their way in apartment buildings.  I used their actions of writing their denials of Entry when requested for the Eviction. It was enough.

I was amazed by all the terrible assumptions being made by these Toxic People in this writing. They take my words and actions and speculate on what it means with their “it appears” statements, implying their allegations must be correct and they ask so many questions, implying that HRTO is accepting of their speculations as the truth when they have no idea how I think or what my motives were.

How could they truly know what they claim when they have nothing that proves it, just their word? I find their arrogance frustrating but, I have learned to ignore it as I can’t do anything about it. That is also on them!

They show their hand when writing like this… Rather than taking a situation they already gave in their applications and proving their allegations of racism and discrimination, which they were asked to do, they speculate instead and ask more questions, hoping to imply people in the direction they want them to go. It is so very confusing and that is their intention!

When will they learn that they cannot assume to know what another person is doing so blatantly as they do in their posts and documents like this?

Don’t they know that all their speculations just show how desperate they are for people to believe them?

Their statements made in this document show their sense that they were getting treated “unfairly” not that their Human Rights were violated.

As stated by HRTO in March 2019 “It is not clear the applicants have any evidence to establish a link between their race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, citizenship, family status, marital status, receipt of public assistance, association, and reprisal or threat of reprisal and what the respondents have alleged to have done.”

The Interim Decision sent out on March 8, 2019, shows what they were required to do to prove their case. This is why a summary hearing was scheduled for January 17, 2020, that the Toxic Tenants ignored. That action is all on them! They knew they were losing their case when they got this letter, just as I knew.

HRTO told them that the 300+ pages they sent do not prove their claims in their applications. HRTO was seeing it all as “general allegations of unfairness

The Tribunal cannot decide general allegations of unfairness unrelated to the Code. It is not clear that the applicants’ allegations against the respondents may be reasonably considered to amount to a Code violation. 

<https://canlii.ca/t/hz14r>

3. IS THERE NO REASONABLE PROSPECT THAT ALL OR PART OF THIS APPLICATION WILL SUCCEED? (SUMMARY HEARING)

[20]        The applicants allege discrimination with respect to housing, goods, services and facilities because of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, citizenship, family status, marital status, receipt of public assistance, association with a person identified by a ground listed above, and reprisal.

WHAT IS A SUMMARY HEARING?

[21]        Where it appears that there is no reasonable prospect that all or part of an application will succeed, the Tribunal may determine it is appropriate to hold a “summary hearing” on that issue. The summary hearing gives an applicant an opportunity to more fully explain the allegations contained in the application.It also provides the Tribunal with the opportunity to hear arguments from the parties before it makes its decision. In some cases, such as this one, the Tribunal combines a summary hearing with a preliminary hearing dealing with other issues.

[22]        No witnesses are called to testify at a summary hearing and the parties are not expected to submit documents for the summary hearing. Instead, the Tribunal will make its decision based on the materials already filed by the parties and their submissions in the summary hearing.

[23]        The Tribunal will dismiss an application after a summary hearing, if it determines that there is no reasonable prospect it will succeed. In some cases, the Tribunal may find that only part of an application has no reasonable prospect of success and the Tribunal may permit the remainder of the application to continue in the Tribunal’s process.

Summary Hearing Issues to be Addressed

[24]       It is not clear the applicants have any evidence to establish a link between their race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, citizenship, family status, marital status, receipt of public assistance, association, and reprisal or threat of reprisal and what the respondents have alleged to have done.That is,although the applicants may believe that the conduct of the respondents is connected to one or more of the above grounds, it is not clear that there is evidence available to prove the connection.The focus of this inquiry is on the evidence the applicants have or may be able to obtain. The applicants will be expected to explain what evidence they expect to be able to present at a merits hearing to support a link between the Code grounds identified in the Applications and what the respondents have alleged to have done

[25]       It is not clear that the issues raised in the Application falls under the Code.The Tribunal cannot decide general allegations of unfairness unrelated to the Code. It is not clear that the applicants’ allegations against the respondents may be reasonably considered to amount to a Code violation. The focus of this inquiry is on the legal basis for the applicants’ claim and whether or not there is any reasonable prospect the allegations may amount to a Code violation.

[26]        The section 8 reprisal protections only apply to the actions of a respondent that are intended as a reprisal for any of the following: (1) claiming or enforcing a right under the Code; (2) instituting or participating in proceedings under the Code; or, (3) refusing to infringe the right of another person under the Code. See for example Mirea v. Canadian National Exhibition, 2009 HRTO 32; Chan v. Tai Pan Vacations, 2009 HRTO 273, Noble v. York University, 2010 HRTO 878 at para. 31. To proceed with the Applications, there must be a reasonable basis to believe that the applicants could establish the respondents reprised against them for one of these three things.

Enjoy reading their entitled arrogant assumptions in this writing below as I did. I had a great laugh at some of it, it is so entitled and shows their extreme arrogance of thinking that what they have to say is so important for others to read.

That is the brunt of it, isn’t it? They feel that what they have to say, about other individuals, is just so important for others to see that they have to make it public.  They are looking for support and validation for their actions, claiming to be “informing the public” when it is just about placing blame and making things hard for their Targets.

In time, you will see what I see in their writing, I have no doubts about that. They were throwing out allegations without any facts to back them up, just their personal assumptions.

Stella Reddy own racially motivated actions of harassment, discriminating and acting in a reprisal manner and/orwhere any sensible person would have concluded that there was some alterative motive behind her actions and/or behaviour.

Mr. R takes various claims and proceeds to go on a rant about what HE THINKS it means. He claims to have “proven” that there was no need to have the fixed line of sight Swinn Camera in the position it was in to catch vandalism of the elevator door and Notice Board that was on the other wall.

Sure, if it was just the elevator door that was being scratched up, but it was the buttons and wall above those buttons, and the Notice Board on the side wall, that this camera had to show. The position we placed it in covered all of that.

Now, if the camera was placed in the hallway directly across from their apartment door, then I could understand their complaints, but it wasn’t. I sent them a picture of the view taken by this camera and you can’t see anything inside their apartment and they know it.

If this camera was such an issue, why was it that ONLY these Tenants complained about it? There were other cameras around in the common areas, including one in the hallway where you could see people entering and leaving their apartments.

This was nic-picking that’s all and it is another way to try and show their superiority in thinking they know better than I did on where the camera should be placed and they expected me to agree with their assessment and move it. 

It has been proven that there was no requirement for the video camera to stay in that current position, and that a better and wider “ direct view ” of the elevator door could have been obtained by simple moving it.

What was also proven is that by moving the video camera, the only “ direct view ” that would have been lost was that into the Applicants unit upon exiting the elevator.

It has also been proven by the newly installed surveillance system that was placed in the elevator is in the same area that was requested by the Applicant in August of 2017 as were denied by the 3 Respondents.

Alto Properties Inc.’s owner okayed the new surveillance systems position, despite back in August 2017 claiming that the current view was the only view that had “ direct sight ” of the problem area.

So why did Alto Properties Inc. owner Stella Reddy refuse to move the video camera the first time when the Applicants asked?

All of the “past behaviours” they made in this document are nic-picking and trying to show their superiority and lording over everyone.

It is filled with their unsolicited advice on how I should have done my job, what they claim my motives are, and what they believe it all meant. There is no factual evidence in this document, not even in the attachments that came with it, that shows anything they say occurred. It is all suppositions of what they believe.

You can read through and see the comments I made on some of the “Past Behaviours” they are trying to get you to believe. Some of it is really outrageous and so improbable!!



Discover more from Stella Reddy's Story

Subscribe to get the latest posts to your email.