Toxic Tenant Bullies Original "Statement of Facts"

KR, in doing the website, decided to change this document, based on info he gained after the fact so it comes out more dramatic. This is filled with word salad. There really was no need to be so detailed, as in writing so many details, KR creates word salad, and you end up more confused than you did before you started reading this document.

Below, you will find the edited version (I took out the names) I did of Toxic Tenant Bullies “statement of facts” they submitted to Human Rights with their applications against me. You will also find these words, with various changes, on their domain of https://socialjusticetribunalsontario.ca/timeline-of-facts-and-events-1/.

Toxic Tenant Bullies, in doing the website, decided to change this document, based on info he gained after the fact so it comes out more dramatic. This is filled with word salad.

There really was no need to be so detailed, as in writing so many details, Toxic Tenant Bullies created word salad, and you end up more confused than you did before you started reading this document.

“there was absolutely no issues as the Applicants husband was fully cooperative even though he was not required by the Ontario Residential Tenancies Act to allow anyone entry.” This sentence is written within numerous times and it is curious, as everyone knows anyone can knock on someone’s door and know it is up to the resident if this person gets inside or not.

By writing this here about being fully cooperative, even though he was not required to do so, he wants to make sure you know he went out of his way to allow people entry, so he can claim he was “nice”. Toxic Tenant Bullies looking for a “pat on the back” as they say for being cooperative with entry.

I put this here so you can compare what they originally wrote to what they have online, as it is quite different in places. You can search by date, as I did.

(Referring to Document # 1 ) – The Applicant pays Alto Properties Inc. employee ( superintendent )

$1050 for her first month rent and another $1050 for her last month rent before moving into unit # 303 at 859 Kennedy Road on June 01, 2015.

It is agreed by the Applicant and Alto Properties Inc. employee that at the time Social Services will be issuing $950 directly to Alto Properties Inc. every month for the Applicants rent, and the Applicant would be responsible for paying the difference of $100 every month.

BETWEEN JULY 2015 TO JUNE 2016

For the next 12 months the Applicant pays Alto Properties Inc. employee every month $100 in cash.

JULY 24, 2015

( Referring to Document # 2 ) – The Applicant hands in her 1st Maintenance Request Form regarding her bathroom celling “ bubbling ” and agrees for pest control to be brought in on August 5, 2015.

( Referring to Document # 3 ) – The Applicant signed and returned attached form “ I am aware of the above preparations and agree to have Magical Pest Control Inc. perform pest control services… ”

BETWEEN JULY 25, 2015 TO AUGUST 4, 2015

Alto Properties Inc. owner and Alto Properties Inc. employee showed up unannounced approximately between 10:00am / 12:00pm to look at the Applicant’s bathroom ceiling. At that time Alto Properties Inc. owner stated that he “ will arrange for a contractor to come in and repair the ceiling. ”

Alto Properties Inc. owner and Alto Properties Inc. Employee NEVER GIVE THE APPLICANT THE REQUIRED 24 HOURS PROPER NOTICE as mandated by the Ontario Residential Tenancies Act when requesting entry into a unit that day.

With this 1st unannounced interaction between the Applicants husband and Alto Properties Inc. owner and Alto Properties Inc. employee there was absolutely no issues as the Applicants husband was fully cooperative even though he was not required by the Ontario Residential Tenancies Act to allow anyone entry.

AUGUST 5, 2015

That morning between approximately between 10:00am and 12:00pm Alto Properties Inc. employee and a pest control technician come to the Applicants unit to complete the gelling of the kitchen area.

The Applicants husband and Alto Properties Inc. employee had a brief discussion about the bathroom ceiling and when they can expect a contractor in to fix it

This interaction went without any issues between the Applicants husband and Alto Properties Inc. employee and the pest control technician.

AUGUST 22, 2015

( Referring to Document # 4 ) – The Applicant hands in a 2nd Maintenance Request Form regarding her unit.

Living room screen window needing to be replaced
Balcony door window screen needing to be
Storm windows needing to be replaced
Pest control spray refrigerator
Bathroom ceiling still needs to be fixed ( bubbling )
Oven is not working
Please remove name from call board in front lobby

BETWEEN AUGUST 23, 2015 – AUGUST 30, 2015

That afternoon between approximately between 12:00pm & 4:00pm Alto Properties Inc. employee and Alto Properties Inc. employee ( husband & superintendent ) showed up at the Applicants unit to view all the issues stated on her 2nd Maintenance Request Form.

Alto Properties Inc. Employee and Alto Properties Inc. Employee NEVER GIVE THE APPLICANT THE REQUIRED 24 HOURS PROPER NOTICE as mandated by the Ontario Residential Tenancies Act when requesting entry into a unit that day.

With this 2nd unannounced interaction between the Applicants husband, Alto Properties Inc. employee and Alto Properties Inc. Employee there was absolutely no issues as the Applicants husband was fully cooperative even though he was not required by the Ontario Residential Tenancies Act to allow anyone entry.

BETWEEN AUGUST 23, 2015 – AUGUST 30, 2015

That afternoon between approximately between 9:00am & 12:00pm Alto Properties Inc. Employee owner showed up unannounced at the Applicants unit and asked if he could view all the issues stated on her 2nd Maintenance Request Form.

Alto Properties Inc. Employee owner NEVER GIVE THE APPLICANT THE REQUIRED 24 HOURS PROPER NOTICE as mandated by the Ontario Residential Tenancies Act when requesting entry into a unit that day.

With this 3rd unannounced interaction between the Applicants husband, Alto Properties Inc. owner there was absolutely no issues as the Applicants husband was fully cooperative even though he was not required by the Ontario Residential Tenancies Act to allow anyone entry.

AUGUST 26, 2015

( Referring to Document # 5 ) – Alto Properties Inc. creates an incomplete duplicate of the Applicants August 22, 2015 Maintenance Request Form where they forget to include the stove and stated storm window instead of storm windows in their new list.

Screen needs to be replaced in living room window ( Checked Completed )
Screen needs to be replaced in balcony window ( Checked Completed )
Storm window needs to be replaced in living room window ( Louie getting window done )
Refrigerator needs to be sprayed and powdered for roaches ( Checked Completed )
Bathroom ceiling needs to be replaced ( Checked Completed )
Can you please remove my last name READ from the board and replace with Occupied
Done ( Checked Completed )

BETWEEN AUGUST 31, 2015 – SEPTEMBER 7, 2015

Alto Properties Inc. Employee ( superintendent ) showed up unannounced at the Applicants unit and asked if he could put in the missing balcony door and window screens.

Alto Properties Inc. Employee NEVER GIVE THE APPLICANT THE REQUIRED 24 HOURS PROPER NOTICE as mandated by the Ontario Residential Tenancies Act when requesting entry into a unit that day.

Alto Properties Inc. employee tried to fix the Applicant stove/oven, but was unable to get it to stay on and heat up.

The Applicants husband and Alto Properties Inc. employee also had a brief discussion about the bathroom ceiling and when they can expect a contractor in to fix it.

With this 5th unannounced interaction between the Applicants husband and Alto Properties Inc. Employee there was absolutely no issues as the Applicants husband was fully cooperative even though he was not required by the Ontario Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 to allow anyone entry.

BETWEEN AUGUST 31, 2015 – SEPTEMBER 7, 2015

Alto Properties Inc. owner and Alto Properties Inc. Employee showed up unannounced at Applicants unit asking if they could try some spare windows from around the building to see if any would fit in where their windows were missing.

After trying four different sized windows and finding nothing that fit, Alto Properties Inc. owner stated that he “ would have to order some glass or get a glass company to come in to replace the windows ”

Again Alto Properties Inc. employee tried to fix the Applicant stove/oven with help of Alto Properties Inc. owner, but again they were unable to get it to stay on and heat up.

The Applicants husband and Alto Properties Inc. owner had a brief discussion about the bathroom ceiling and when they can expect a contractor in to fix it.

With this 6th unannounced interaction between the Applicants husband and Alto Properties Inc. owner and Alto Properties Inc. Employee there was absolutely no issues as the Applicants husband was fully cooperative even though he was not required by the Ontario Residential Tenancies Act to allow anyone entry.

During this 6th unannounced interaction between the Applicants husband and Alto Properties Inc. owner and Alto Properties Inc. Employee. It was NEVER mentioned by anyone that Alto Properties Inc. Employee would be returning the following day to take measurements of the Applicants missing storm window.

As if Alto Properties Inc. owner or Alto Properties Inc. Employee did mention the returning visit the next day. The Applicants husband would have just offered them the use of his measuring tape at that time. 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.

BETWEEN AUGUST 31 – SEPTEMBER 7, 2015

The following day Alto Properties Inc. Employee showed up unannounced at Applicants unit asking if he could try another window and also wanted to measure the outside storm window so he could send the measurements to a glass company.

The inside sliding window that Alto Properties Inc. Employee tried was a semi-fit. It fit into position, but the window was unable to lock properly. It was safety issue was later addressed by the City of Toronto, Property Standards that it had to be replaced as it posed a safety.

Alto Properties Inc. Employee NEVER GIVE THE APPLICANT THE REQUIRED 24 HOURS PROPER NOTICE as mandated by the Ontario Residential Tenancies Act when requesting entry into a unit that day.

With this 7th unannounced interaction between the Applicants husband and Alto Properties Inc. Employee there was absolutely no issues as the Applicants husband was fully cooperative even though he was not required by the Ontario Residential Tenancies Act to allow them entry.

BETWEEN AUGUST 31, 2015 – SEPTEMBER 7, 2015

Alto Properties Inc. owner showed up unannounced at the Applicants unit asking if he now can measure the missing window.

Alto Properties Inc. owner NEVER GIVE THE APPLICANT THE REQUIRED 24 HOURS PROPER NOTICE as mandated by the Ontario Residential Tenancies Act when requesting entry into a unit that day

Again the Applicants husband and Alto Properties Inc. owner had a 2nd brief discussion about the bathroom ceiling and when they can expect a contractor in to fix it.

With this 8th unannounced interaction between the Applicants husband and Alto Properties Inc. owner there was absolutely no issues as the Applicants husband was fully cooperative even though he was not required by the Ontario Residential Tenancies Act to allow anyone entry.

SOMETIME AFTER SEPTEMBER 7, 2015

( Referring to Document # 2, 4, 5 ) – Alto Properties Inc. employee calls the Applicant on her cell phone at the number which was on file to find out if a particular day would be okay for the her and the contactor to come to the unit to repair the bathroom ceiling. A specific date and time were agreed upon by all both parties.

Later that week on the agreed date and time Alto Properties Inc. employee and bathroom contractor showed up to repair the Applicants bathroom ceiling. The bathroom contractor placed a quick coat of plaster on bathroom ceiling and stated that he “ will return next week some time to finish the work. ”

He also stated that Alto Properties Inc. employee “ will let you know when. ” Alto Properties Inc. employee acknowledges this as correct with a “ Yes ”

This interaction went without any issues as the Applicants husband was fully cooperative with Alto Properties Inc. employee and the bathroom contractor.

SOMETIME AFTER SEPTEMBER 7, 2015

Sometime the following week at 10:00am, the bathroom ceiling contractor showed up unannounced at the applicants unit without Alto Properties Inc. Employee every getting in contact with the Applicant.

Also Alto Properties Inc. Employee NEVER GIVE THE APPLICANT THE REQUIRED 24 HOURS PROPER NOTICE as mandated by the Ontario Residential Tenancies Act when requesting entry into a unit that day.

The Applicants husband answers the door in a towel, still wet as he was in the shower at the time the bathroom contractor had knocked on the unit door. The bathroom contractor stated that he is “ back to sand the bathroom ceiling. ”

The Applicants husband explained that he was in the middle of a shower and that he and the children were planning on heading out. The Applicants husband asked the bathroom contractor if he “ could return in about an hour? 11 am? Because that would allow me and the kids to shower and get ready to leave.”

The Applicants husband stated that he “ you can work on the ceiling while everyone is still getting ready, because we won’t need the bathroom than. ”

The Applicants husband noticed bathroom contractor appeared annoyed by this, but still he said “ okay.

With this 9th unannounced interaction there was absolutely no issues as the Applicants husband was fully willing to be cooperative even though he was not required by the Ontario Residential Tenancies Act to allow anyone entry.

At 11:00am the Applicants husband and children were finished using the bathroom and were expecting the bathroom contractor to return.

The bathroom ceiling contractor never returned and they eventually left the unit at 11:45am.

( Referring to Document # 2, 4, 5 ) – Later that evening approximately 6:30pm Alto Properties Inc. employee called the Applicant on her cell phone at the number which was on file and asked the Applicant to meet her downstairs in the office that “I would like to speak with you.”

When the Applicant asked Alto Properties Inc. employee “ In regards too? ” Alto Properties Inc. employee avoided the question and stated that they “ will discuss it in the office. ”

When the Applicant got off the phone, she explained to her husband about the phone call and asked if he had

“ Any idea as to what was going on? ” The Applicants husband stated “ the only thing that happened today is that the contractor showed up ” and that “ he never bothered to return. ”

The Applicant went downstairs to the office and waited in the lobby for Alto Properties Inc. employee to show up. The Applicant waited about 5 minutes in the lobby where the office is located before she called Alto Properties Inc. employee to inquiry as to where she was.

Alto Properties Inc. employees answered the phone and stated “ in the office waiting. ” The Applicant found this very annoying and unusual is a monitor in the office that shows the views of all the camera form around the entire building.

This meant that Alto Properties Inc. employee was just sitting in the office, with the door closed watching the Applicant standing in the lobby waiting for her, instead of just leaving the office door open or opening the office door to inform the Applicant that she was inside the office waiting for her.

After the Applicant walked over to the office door and knocked, Alto Properties Inc. employee opened the office door and stated “ sit down there.“ The Applicant found the demeanour of Alto Properties Inc. employee was rude and aggressive and he appeared to be angry.

The Applicant sat down in the chair while Alto Properties Inc. employee sat behind the office desk. Alto Properties Inc. employee did not sit down in the only remaining chair next to the Applicant, but instead he stood off to the side and in front of the office door.

As the Applicant sat in the chair, she thought about how she was under the impression the meeting was going to only consist of Alto Properties Inc. employee and herself, as stated “ I would like to speak with you.”

Without any form of salutations or pleasant greetings, Alto Properties Inc. employee started the conversation by stating that the Applicants husband “ had no right to refuse entry to the contractor earlier today, and because of his actions, we could have you evicted from our building.

The Applicant reminded Alto Properties Inc. employees that “ there was no phone call or Notice of Entry given to me that mentioned the bathroom ceiling contractor was coming today, and my husband did not refuse him entry, he asked the contractor if he could come back in an hour so he and the kids could finish bathing. ”

Alto Properties Inc. employee continued and stated that this “ was not the point! “ and that “ If the contractor shows up at your door, you are obligated to allow them into the unit to do their repairs. ”

Eventually the Applicant told Alto Properties Inc. employees that they were wrong and that she “ did not care about your interruption on the law. ” The Applicant explained to them that they had to give her 24 hour notice and that was final.

When the Applicant got up to leave, Alto Properties Inc. employee continued to stand in front of the office door blocking her path to leave. The Applicant looked straight at him and said “ Really? ” Alto Properties Inc. employee than stepped to the side and the Applicant left the office and returned to her unit.

When the Applicant got back to her unit she explained to her husband what had happened in the office and it was determined at that time by both the Applicant and her husband that the Applicant was never going back to the office again for any meetings.

The Applicant and her husband felt that Alto Properties Inc. and their employees and Alto Properties Inc. and their employees tried to ambush the Applicant and wanted to create an environment where she was so uncomfortable and unaware of, they could then try and intimidate and threaten her into compliance with being okay with their idea of allowing people to enter her unit illegally and without proper notice.

BETWEEN SEPTEMBER 2015 TO OCTOBER 2015

The Applicant hands in a 3rd Maintenance Request Form requesting pest control to be brought in for a 2nd time to spray her refrigerator as it seems to have a serious roach infestation.

BETWEEN SEPTEMBER 2015 TO OCTOBER 2015

During the week after arranging a time with the Applicant over the phone at the number which was on file. Alto Properties Inc. employee and a pest control technician came to the Applicants unit to complete the spraying of the refrigerator.

The pest control technician stated that the refrigerator needed to be “ tilted over ” so that he could spray right up into the unit for maximum benefits.

The refrigerator was unplugged and then was tilted over so the pest control technician could spray up inside the refrigerator unit. When he was done, the refrigerator was then placed upwards again.

The pest control technician than sprayed the wall and floor behind the refrigerator and stove and left the unit with Alto Properties Inc. employee.

This interaction went without any issues as the Applicants husband was fully cooperative with Alto Properties Inc. employee and the pest control technician.

About an hour after the pest control technician left the unit, the Applicant called Alto Properties Inc. employee to explain that her refrigerator appeared not to be working. Alto Properties Inc. employees and come to the Applicant unit to look at the refrigerator and confirmed that it was not getting cold.

Alto Properties Inc. employees stated “ leave it overnight and see how it is in the morning. ”

The Applicant asked Alto Properties Inc. employees “ Don’t you have a have a spare refrigerator stored in the building or an empty apartment? “

Alto Properties Inc. employee stated “ No! “

The Applicant was upset that she had nowhere to store what was in her refrigerator and it was obvious that Alto Properties Inc. employees did not care about her situation and made no attempts help her out of this unfortunate situation.

First thing at 9:00am the next morning, the Applicant called Alto Properties Inc. employee to explain that the refrigerator was still not working and that all of the food in the refrigerator had spoiled. Alto Properties Inc. employee stated “ Give it to the end of the day and let me know if it comes back on. “

Alto Properties Inc. employee also stated that Alto Properties Inc. owner “ will be dropping by tomorrow to take a look at the refrigerator if it still not working. “ While he is viewing the other problems within the Applicants unit.

On the third day of the Applicants refrigerator was still not working. Alto Properties Inc. owner and Alto Properties Inc. employee showed up at the Applicants unit in the early afternoon .

Alto Properties Inc. employee pulled out the refrigerator to get behind it, while behind the refrigerator he did something and said “ Leave it until tomorrow. If it is still not working then, we will try and get a new refrigerator for you than. “

On the fourth day of the refrigerator was still not working, The Applicant again called at 9:00am Alto Properties Inc. employee and explained that the refrigerator is still was not working after 4 days.

Alto Properties Inc. employee stated that “ I will try and get you a refrigerator today. “ About 1/2 later Alto Properties Inc. employee called the Applicant back and stated that “ a new refrigerator will be here sometime today, this afternoon. ”

Mid-afternoon Alto Properties Inc. employees showed up at the Applicants unit and swapped out the old refrigerator that was not working with a semi-clean new one. The applicant and her husband had to clean out and off the refrigerator that was clearly sitting in a storage room or was from an old unit in the building or from one of Alto Properties Inc. other buildings.

MAY OR JUNE 2016

The Applicant is given proper Notice of Entry for an Annual Fire Inspection later that month

JUNE 2016

Alto Properties Inc. employee and Alto Properties Inc. employee perform an Annual Fire Inspection of the Applicants unit.

The Applicants husband asks if they would also like to check the 4 other smoke detectors inside the unit.

Alto Properties Inc. employee stated “ I am not required too, but sure. ” At that point the Applicants husband showed everyone the other 4 smoke detectors and is given brand new batteries by Alto Properties Inc. employee for them.

( Referring to Document # 6 ) – Well checking the 4 remaining smoke detectors in the Applicants unit, the Applicants husband and Alto Properties Inc. employee had a brief discussion about why they had have so many smoke detectors.

The Applicants husband stated “ I’ve worked many years in the funeral industry, and I have seen a lot of death, preventable death. I once had to remove a lady and her 3 really young daughters from their beds because they died from smoke inhalation while living Hamilton, they died from the smoke and not the fire itself. ”

The Applicants husband and Alto Properties Inc. employee and Alto Properties Inc. employee had a brief discussion about the bathroom ceiling and when they can expect a contractor in to fix it.

This interaction went without any issues as the Applicants husband was fully cooperative with Alto Properties Inc. employee and Alto Properties Inc. employee.

JUNE 2016

In mid/late June 2016, the Applicant and her family attend the restaurant Dragon Handroll Buffet ( formerly known as Happy Panda Buffett ) which is located at the corner of Eglington and Brimley.

The family entered the restaurant and was told that they would have to wait about 5 minutes for a seat, as this was not a large restaurant and it was busy. The family decided that they would go outside and wait instead of standing in the small restaurant doorway.

As the family walked out the door, they passed a couple coming into the restaurant. The Applicants husband made a joke to the Applicant about the couple they just passed coming in that “ they looked like there from Hamilton. ”

As the Applicants husband was born and raised in Hamilton until 2006, when they finally moved to Toronto. The Applicant and her husband had an ongoing joke that people who dress bummy/sloppy remind them of people from Hamilton.

After the family stood outside for a couple of minutes, the same bummy/sloppy couple that was entering the restaurant when they were leaving came out and approached the family

The female of the couple asked the Applicant “ Do you live on Kennedy Road? ” The Applicants husband replied “ Why? ” as he began to wonder what was going on and why was this strange woman asking them where they lived?

The female stated that her name was “ Stella “ ( Reddy ) and that the gentleman with her was her “ husband, “, and that they were the “ new supers of 859 Kennedy Road. ”

The Applicant replied that she had “ not heard anything about new supers taking over the building. ”

Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy stated “ I was at the building earlier this week, and I seen you and your family leaving “ and that she remembered them “ because of your children. ”

Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy asked the Applicant and her husband “ Are these your Mulatto children? ”

The Applicants husband looked at Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy with disbelief and confusion as he could not believe what he just heard. Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy used the word “ Mulatto ” when referring to his children.

The Applicants husband understood very well what the prejudice and derogatory slur “ Mulatto “ meant. It is a derogatory term that came into use during slavery when referring to the bi-racial offspring of African slaves and most often their white European slave masters.

As the Applicants husband grew up his whole life with what Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy called a “ Mulatto ” bother from his mom’s previous relationship before marrying his dad.

The Applicants husband had a very clear understand of what was acceptable and what was not acceptable when trying to identify or label black or bi-racial people or children in local society.

His bi-racial bother faced a lot of racial issues and teasing while growing up, being that he was a bi-racial child living in an all-white home. Society in the 70’s and 80’s was not always as understanding or forgiving as it has somewhat become today.

The Applicants husband was going to address Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy about her prejudice and derogatory “ Mulatto ” slur, but when he looked at his wife, she gave him – The Look – as to just leave it alone.

The Applicant replied “ Yes ” leaving out the prejudice and derogatory “ Mulatto ” slur. Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy stated that “ They are beautiful looking. ” Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy asked the Applicant “ Where are you from? ”

The Applicants husband was again going to address this question that was only direct towards the Applicant. But again she gave him – The Look – to just leave it alone.

The Applicants husband was not impressed with the line of questioning that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy thought was acceptable. It was clear that an ignorant Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy believed that the Applicant could not have been born in Canada, and that she must have migrated from another country because of her skin tone. “ black ”

Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy clearly did not feel the need to ask the Applicants white husband where he was from as he was the same complexion as her.

At that point the Applicant replied “ I am from the Caribbean “ and left it at that. The Applicants husband took that moment to cut the conversation short stating “ we should head back inside to eat, “ and off they went.

Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy and her husband Alto Properties Inc. employee never returned back inside the restaurant to eat after the Applicant and her family left and went back inside.

JULY 5, 2016

The next time the Applicant encountered Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy was on July 5, 2016 when Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy refused to take $121.00 cash from the Applicant for the remaining amount owed on her July rent.

Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy refused to take the Applicants difference in rent claiming that she was “ not comfortable ” with taking $121 in cash. The Applicant explained to Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy that she did not care if she was “ comfortable ” with the idea or not.

The Applicant explained that the she had been making monthly cash payment for the past 12 months without any problems, issues or objections from Alto Properties Inc. or Alto Properties Inc. employee.

Eventually Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy had to give in and take the Applicants $121 cash payment as she unable to find any justifiable reason why previous Alto Properties Inc. employee could take cash, but she ( Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy ) now could not.

Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy opened a draw in her desk and took out a receipt book and proceeded to supply the Applicant with a recipe for the $121 in cash for her July rent.

At that time Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy stated that the Applicant was “ either going to have to write checks or get money orders made in the future to pay your rent, starting next month. ( August 2016 )”

JULY 28, 2016

( Referring to Document # 7 ) – The Applicant and her family find a letter in their mailbox by Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy stating in a threating and bully manner that their BBQ is “ not allowed under City of Toronto Fire Code regulations, as they require BBQ’s to be at least 9 feet away from doors and windows. ”

Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy also stated in the letter “ I had to research this fact a few years ago when the management I worked for at the time wanted to put in a bbq area for the tenants.

Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy went on to state “ As we are here to ensure the safety of all tenants it is our job to enforce rules, so your co-operation would be greatly appreciated. I am hoping by August 5th to see all these items gone or I will have no alternative than to proceed to the landlord and Tenant Board for enforcement. ”

AUGUST 2, 2016

Early that morning the Applicants husband took their pet dog Cassie out to go to the bathroom. Upon coming and going from the building, he noticed Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy in the buildings office.

( Referring to Document # 8, 9, 10 ) – The Applicants husband went to their unit and grabbed some documents that he had previously prepared to give to Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy in regards to the BBQ letter that was previous left in their mailbox dated July 28, 2016.

The Applicants husband went to the office and handed Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy the printed pages from the City of Toronto website in regards to what where the actual facts about the “ Use of BBQ on a balcony. ” The Applicants husband stated “ I think you have misread the act in regards to BBQ’s and balconies “

The printout stated “ Under the Fire Code, there are no restrictions on balcony barbecues. There are however guidelines regarding outdoor propane and natural gas tanks under the Ontario Propane and Natural Gas Code, which must be followed. ”

The Applicants husband also supplied Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy with a copy of the TSSA ( Technical Standards & Safety Authority ) 2 page requirements print from their website that stated “ Using propane BBQ’s on the balcony? You may be one of many Ontarians who live in an apartment or condominium – but are you aware of the safety issues and restrictions involved when using barbeques on balconies?, If barbeques are permitted in your building, there are still some regulations you need to be aware of.

The balcony must be open ( no closures or walls have been erected )
Cylinders must be transported in a service elevator. When no service elevators, the person must use the passengers elevator alone to transport the
Cylinders must be kept
The barbeque must be clear of all combustible
The cylinder relief valve must be at least one meter horizontally from any building opening below it, and three meters from building ”

Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy quickly reviewed the documents for approximately about 10 seconds and the Applicants husband stated “ A window and a door is not considered to be a building intake. “

Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy indignantly replied “ all propane tanks have to be 9 feet away from any opening, and therefore they do not meet fire code requirements set by the city of Toronto.

The Applicants husband stated “ What you are doing is taking some of one part and adding some of another part and making up your own rules. “

Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy abruptly cut the Applicants husband off and stated in a bully tone “ In my 20 plus years as a superintendent, I have had to research this as I have seen MANY propane tanks

exploded. ”

Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy continued “ in my last building, before I got ill with Cancer, there was a barbecue area right next to the building. One day a propane tank suddenly exploded right next to a gentleman who was barbequing and it caused the building to catch on fire causing a huge amount of damage. ”

The Applicants husband replied “ WOW, I have never heard of any propane tanks exploding on news here in Toronto, let alone causing a building to go up into flames. “ He then stood there for a few seconds just looking at Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy thinking how she was a phony and an outright liar.

The Applicants husband stated “ interesting “ and then turned around and walk out of the office, amazed about how Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy was willing to make herself look like a bold face liar just to try and prove her inaccurate point.

Later that same afternoon, the Applicant and her husband went to the office to pay $121 in cash for her remaining rent for the month of August 2016 as she had done every month since moving in 13 months earlier.

The Applicant and her husband went into the office with his phone video recording the interaction, as the Applicant anticipated that again Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy would again try to refuse her cash for rent and wanted proof of the refusal.

The Applicant attempted to hand Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy the $121 cash, but Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy again refused to take it for that month’s rent. Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy again stated that she was “ not comfortable ” with taking the cash.

The Applicant replied that she again did not care if Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy was uncomfortable with the idea of her paying her remaining rent in cash, and that it was not her problem.

The Applicant stated to Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy “ that if you are going to be a superintendent of a building you need to be comfortable with handling cash. ”

Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy replied that the Applicant was “ either going to have to write check or get a money order made to pay your rent. ”

The Applicant stated that she was “ not going to go buy checks for $67.00, and I am not going to spend $11.30 every month to make money orders because you ( Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy

) are not comfortable handling cash. ”

Stella Ready suddenly changing her position and argument from being “ not comfortable ” to now Alto Properties Inc. owner says “ it is a liability issue and the owners NEVER wanted it .” And “ that because there is no safe in the office, I cannot take cash. ”

The Applicant asked “ Did staff take Alto Properties safe to their apartment when they were fired? ”

Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy replied “ There was never a safe. ”

So the Applicant asked “ How did they manage to protect the money I gave them, and you can’t? ” and “ What change in this situation that did not exist before that suddenly Louie now thinks it is a liability issue? ”

Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy ignored the questions completely and stated “ according to your lease, all rent must be paid by check or money order, and if you decide not to pay using one of these two methods, than I will be forced to evict you for not paying your rent. ”

At that very moment the Applicant began to feel that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy was trying to intimidate and threaten her into compliance with being okay with what she wanted. The Applicant began to remember how the last time she was in the same office with Alto Properties Inc. employees and, they also tried to ambush, intimidate and threaten her into compliance with an eviction because she was not okay with their idea of allowing people to enter her unit illegally and without proper notice. But now it was Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy who was trying to intimidate and threaten her into compliance with an eviction for questioning her on how she was to pay her rent.

The Applicants husband stated to his wife “ if that is the case, than we will hold onto our rent and eventually Louie will have to take us to court, and at that time, he can explain to the Landlord Tenant Board why he is now suddenly refusing to take our money for the rent after 13 months of taking it. ”

Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy replied “ I am very familiar with the Ontario Residential Tenancies Act because I have been a superintendent for 16 years here in Canada, and Alto Properties can implement whatever new polices they want and whenever they feel the need to do so, because The Act allows for it. ”

The Applicants husband quickly jumped on Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy statement stating “ You said earlier to me you’ve been a superintendent for 20 years, now its 16? “

Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy replied “ No, I told you 16 years! “

The Applicant jumped into the conversation to end the debate and stated “ Look, Louie cannot just start enforcing his own rules after 13 months on not wanting too, especially when it results in me now having incur an expense to pay my own rent. Louie has chosen to accept my rent for the past 13 months using cash, and now suddenly Louie wants to implement new policies for rent payments? He needs to continue to offer me something that is still free. ”

After some more conversation between the parties, Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy finally either realized that she was being video recorded and/or just realized that this was a no win situation and stated “ I will speak to the owners ( Antony Liscio ) about doing a onetime e-transfer for your remaining rent.

Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy went on to state “ at their other properties, they already have in place an e-transfer feature for the tenants to pay their rent there.” The Applicant asked “ Why doesn’t Louie just offer it here and then the problem is solved? ”

Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy stated “ I am going to bring in an interact machine soon, so you can pay your rent that way. ” The Applicant replied “ How much is that going to cost? ” Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy replied “ Not sure yet? ” and that was the end of the conversation.

Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy stated “ I will get back to you tomorrow about the e-transfer. ” and the Applicant replied “ Okay, thanks. ” and the Applicant and her husband left the office and went back to their unit.

AUGUST 3, 2016

( Referring to Document # 11 ) – It was not until the Applicant and her husbands were heading out to pick their children at the school bus drop off at 3:10pm that they noticed something in their mailbox. The Applicant was confused as postmaster to have come by 1:00pm when she had checked the mail and it was only flyers that were in the mailbox.

The letter was from Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy and it stated “ Attn. Ms. Read, I am following up with you in writing about the incident in the office this morning over not accepting your cash payment of $121.00 for the balance of your rent. Firstly, please note that I did not give permission for you to take video of me, with audio. I did not consent for you to take this video nor while you were taking it was I asked if it was okay for you to do so. Anyone is allowed to take public pictures and video as long as there is no audio. If audio is involved consent need to be given and I am not giving consent. Due to the aggression and frustration shown by the raised voices, and language used, earlier by yourself and your partner, I felt it safer to not say anything about this at the time you took this video and gave minimum responses. You are welcome to contact Toronto Police at the #41 Division located at 2222 Eglington Av. E., Toronto, ON, MIK 2M2 Phone: 416-808- 4100 to enquire about the video recording. As per the application you signed in 2015, all payments to Management are to be made in money order or cheque. I have enclosed that copy that you left in the office that I did for you. I explained to you last month that I would not accept any future payments made by cash due to liability. I do not have a safe, nor is there a safe and secure place to keep cash in the office, and I am also not willing to risk my own personal safety by keeping cash on site. I gave you the information to contact the Landlord and Tenant Board and you are welcome to use it if you wish to have more clarification on rent payment. I am willing to work with you to solve this issue as long as we can have a polite and civil conversation with no aggression and shouting. Once yours, and your partners, voice raised this morning I did not engage in the conversation as I did not find it appropriate, and did not want to get into an argument, which I am sure you can appreciate. If you wish to speak about this in a calmer manner, I am always available at 416-752-3030 or by email at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. ‘;document.getElementById(‘cloak8888597b10dec21ed14b8a2de0be0561′).innerHTML += ”+addy_text8888597b10dec21ed14b8a2de0be0561+'<\/a>’; “

At this point the Human Rights Tribunal attention will need to begin to focus on what is going to become ongoing pattern. From this point on, the Applicant will began pointing out all of Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy’s deliberately inaccurate statements that always seem to benefit herself, her situation and always put her in a favorable light.

The Applicant will also be pointing out how Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy likes to embellish or just outright lie upon the Applicant and her husband and no matter how minor the statement is. Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy ALWAYS portrays herself as being in a hostile environment and that the Applicant and her family are always the irrational and uncivilized and that they are always being the ones who are being uncooperative and unreasonable.

The Applicant and her husband were taken back by how much Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy had exaggerated, embellished and even lied about the entire conversation they had the day previously.

The Applicant and her husband could not believe that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy used statements like “ Due to the aggression and frustration shown by the raised voices, and language used, earlier by yourself and our partner, voice raised this morning I did not engage in the conversation as I did not find it appropriate, and did not want to get into an argument ” and “ I am willing to work with you to solve this issue as long as we can have a polite and civil conversation with no aggression and shouting. Once yours, and your partners, voice raised this morning I did not engage in the conversation as I did not find it appropriate, and did not want to get into ands argument. ”

The Applicant and her husband were equally perplexed by what was written in the letter, among the exaggerated, embellished and outright lies. They were confused by Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy statement “ I am willing to work with you to solve this issue as long as we can have a polite and civil conversation with no aggression and shouting. ” and “ If you wish to speak about this in a calmer manner, ”

Being so confused by the content of the incorrectly dated letter, the Applicant and her husband thought that maybe Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy might have somehow confused their conversation the day with someone else? It just made no sense to them where all this came from.

At this time the Applicant and her husband began to suspect that based on their previous inappropriate conversation in June at Dragon Hand Roll Buffet, July’s interaction when they attempted to pay only $121 cash for their rent and now this sudden letter that was full of exaggerated, embellished and lies. That thought that maybe Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy might have some animosity towards them.

There was no doubt in their minds that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy had clearly and deliberately written the letter in a way to cast an unfavorable light upon them. It also clear to the Applicant and her husband that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy had some form of an alternative and personal motive behind her actions.

The Applicant and her husband decided they better email Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy in regards to their conversation from the day before as to see what Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy response would be.

( Referring to Document # 12 ) – When the Applicant and her husband get home from picking up the kids, they immediately send an email to Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy at 15:46 where they stated “ Hi Stella, I am just following up with you in regards to our conversation on Tuesday August 2, 2016 about an alternative method of paying my remaining rent as the owners no long will accept cash from me after 13 months of doing so. I also went to reiterate that I CAN NOT afford to pay anything extra outside of my regular rent. Can you please let me know where Alto Properties is at in regards to taking my remaining rent for the month of August. ”

( Referring to Document # 13 ) – Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy replies 9 minutes later via email at 15:55 stating “ Afternoon Allison, Thank you for your email. Hope you are staying cool with this heat… I haven’t forgotten… As per the balance of rent, they will let you do the email transfer for this month but I am waiting on what email they want to use for it, as I don’t have access through this one. I messaged the owner at 4:38 pm about it and am waiting for a response. Once I get the info I will let you know what email and what information to put in. I’ll have it for you today. If you require anything else please let me know. ”

( Referring to Document # 14 ) – Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy relies 5 minutes later via email at 16:00 stating “ Hi Again Allison, The email for the balance of rent is This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. ‘;document.getElementById(‘cloak4f390e831ae94ec6613497508a895b59′).innerHTML += ”+addy_text4f390e831ae94ec6613497508a895b59+'<\/a>’; The password to use is Kennedyrd. Please ensure that you put in the comment section for the transfer your apartment number of 303-859 Kennedy Rd so they know whom it is coming from. If you have any issues please let me know. ”

( Referring to Document # 15 ) – The Applicant replies 12 minutes later via email at 16:12 stating “ Thanks ”

( Referring to Document # 16 ) – Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy replies 1 hour and 1 minute later via email at 17:13 stating “ Hi Allison, I was wondering if you sent the transfer yet? I have the owner watching for it. Thank you ”

Clearly the Applicant is polite and courteous in these emails, as is Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy right back. Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy even appears to want to make small talk with the Applicant by stating “ Hope you are staying cool with this heat… ”

These emails only continue to bring confusion about Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy inaccurately dated letter where she stated the Applicant and her husband were “ aggressive ”, “ frustrated ”, along with what we would assume was improper “ language ” along with they had “ raised voices ”

Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy also goes on to state in her inaccurately dated letter that she did not “ engage in the conversation ”, but she was “ willing to work with you ( Applicant ) to solve this issue ”. There appears to have been “ aggression and shouting ” towards Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy.

Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy also stated in her inaccurately dated letter that she did not find the conversation “ appropriate ” and that Applicant and her husband needed to act in a “ calmer manner ” if they wished to have any further conversation about how to pay the rent.

And that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy gave the Applicant “ information to contact the Landlord and Tenant Board and you are welcome to use it if you wish to have more clarification on rent payments. ”

And yet with all the very deliberate placed negative, bias and deceptive recall of events by Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy in her inaccurately dated letter about the Applicant and her husband from just the day before.

It appears that suddenly there is absolutely no tension or hostility towards each other during this entire email exchange the next day

The Human Rights Tribunal must ask itself, do these emails have the tone of two people who Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy said were yelling, screaming, swearing, being hostile and being aggressive towards her only 24 hours earlier?

Do these email correspondence sound like there is are any outstanding issues that need to be resolve in regards to the Applicant and her paying rent as stated by Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy in her inaccurately dated letter? “ I am willing to work with you to solve this issue as long as we can have a polite and civil conversation with no aggression and shouting. ” and “ If you wish to speak about this in a calmer manner, ”

No! Why? Because in this same “ aggressive ”, “ frustrated ”, improper “ language ”, “ raised voices ”, “ aggression and shouting ” and it was such an inappropriate conversation from the day before. Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy who stated that she did not “ engage in the conversation ” did in fact engage in conversation with the Applicant and her husband.

In fact Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy had to have engaged, as she is the one who made arranges for the Applicant to pay her rent via e-transfer to Alto Properties Inc. owners Antony Liscio which is confirmed in the emails from the following day.

So there is no doubt that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy did engage in conversation with the Applicant and her husband and that she did arrange with Alto Properties Inc. owners Antony Liscio for an e- payment, and in fact help the Applicant in paying her rent.

With that in mind, if the conversation was as so loud, hostile and volatile on August 2, 2016. Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy was well with in her rights to ask the Applicant and her husband to leave the office, and/or she could have called the Police to intervene. But she did not, instead she decided to assist the Applicant with paying her rent, even though the situation was so inappropriate that she typed up a letter, stating she did not even want to “ engage in the conversation “.

It is so painful obvious that after reading Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy inaccurately dated letter and reviewing emails and events/conversation of what happened on August 2, 2016. Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy from that day started plotting her case to have the Applicant and her family removed from 859 Kennedy Road for some alternative and/or personal motive.

Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy inaccurately dated her letter deliberately and created and placed negative, bias and a deceptive recall of events that without any doubts, would make any person reading the inaccurately dated letter believe that the Applicant and her husband were acting uncivilized, unreasonable and uncooperative.

It appears that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy was relying on the hope that the events and what happened on August 2, 2016, would just come down to her word verse the word of the Applicant and her husband who would have already be tainted by her inaccurately dated letter.

But what Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy did not anticipate is her own paperwork/emails would show the true nature of the events and that it was a polite and normal conversation.

It will also be shown later in this complaint that there can no longer be doubted that when you speak to Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy in any kind of tone, and/or you appear to disrespect her self- appointed authority over you when speaking with her

That Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy will sudden exaggerate, embellish, lie about events and conversations and the tones used by the other party during the conversation in order to cast a negative light upon the Applicant and her husband.

The above event is a perfect example of this type of behavior displayed by Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy. The conversation was not heated, nor was it loud. The Applicant was firm in her position and was not taking no for an answer. The Applicant and her husband did not need to raise their voices, nor did they need to use “ language ” that we assume was inappropriate. The Applicant had a well-established pattern of paying her rent via cash on time every month, since she moved in 13 months ago.

The only thing that can be construed about Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy actions is that she did not want to take the Applicants money for the remaining rent for one or more reasons.

Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy hoped that the Applicant would just finally get tired of the conversation and leave the office and not pay her rent? Therefore eventually allowing Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy to file with the Landlord Tenant Board to have her evicted for non- payment of rent as she previously threatened to do. And/or…
Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy refused the Applicants payment of rent just out of spite because of some pre-existing racist and prejudice views against non-whites. And/or…
Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy refuses the Applicants payment just out of spite because of some pre-existing prejudice and racist views against the Applicant and husband’s interracial relationship and/or
Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy refuses the Applicants payment just out of spite because of some pre-existing prejudice and racist views against the Applicant and husband’s their interracial “ Mulatto ” children? And/or…
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 refused the Applicants payment because she just wanted to show the Applicant that she was in charge and that she ( the Applicant ) was not allowed to challenge her authority. And/or…
Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy went back to the building to search/review the Applicants file, where she notice that she was currently getting Social Assistance and for some reason had issue with it. 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

What the Human Rights Tribunal needs to ask themselves is who really had the issue with taking the Applicants $121 cash for her remaining rent? It could not be Alto Properties Inc. owner or his son Alto Properties Inc. owner, as they had been taking the Applicants cash payments for the past 13 months. Even Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy took it for the month of July 2016.

What the Human Rights Tribunal also needs to ponder is, did Alto Properties Inc. owner and/or his son Alto Properties Inc. owner and/or Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy suddenly implement these new policies in regards to rent payments in hopes of targeting the Applicant for evection based on the fact of non-payment of rent and/or based on late payments of rent as mentioned by Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy

The reality and facts of this particular situation is that if the Alto Properties Inc. owner and his son Alto Properties Inc. owner NEVER had any issue with taking the Applicants cash to pay her rent in the past. The only new player in the equation was Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy.

The facts are that if Alto Properties Inc. owner and his son Alto Properties Inc. owner really did not want to collect cash from the Applicant since the beginning of her tenancy in June 2015, as stated by Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy.

Then former Alto Properties Inc. employee would have been the perfect individual to enforce this rule, as she made it very well known on more than one occasion to the Applicant that she hated having to come to the office every month for the Applicant and two other units in the building to pay their rent in cash.

On one occasion the Applicant was by the elevator door in the lobby waiting for Alto Properties Inc. employee to come down so they could go to the office and she could pay her remaining rent in cash.

When she suddenly heard from on the other side of the elevator door, Alto Properties Inc. employee cursing like a lunatic about having to come to the office to collect rent. This is how much Alto Properties Inc. employee hated the idea of collecting cash rent from the tenants in the building.

It also needs to be noted that Alto Properties Inc. Employee Stella Reddy at first was “ Not Comfortable ” with the idea of taking cash. It than became an issue of “ Liability ” and now in the letter dated August 1, 2016 to the Applicant, Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy now suddenly fears for her “ Personal Safety ”.

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.

Since that “ one time ” e-transfer back in August 2016. The Applicant decided that she would send any remaining amount of owed rent via the e-transfer method to Alto Properties if they liked it or not.

Since that “ one time ” e-transfer back in August 2016. The Applicant has been paying her rent on time and in full via the e-transfer method to Alto Properties if they liked it or not.

There has never been an issue since August 2016 about the Applicant paying rent via e-transfers.

AUGUST 22, 2016

( Referring to Document # 17 ) – The Applicant receives a Notice of Enter from Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy for Pest Control to come to her unit on August 29, 2016 between the hours of 11:00am to 3:00pm.

( Referring to Document # 18 ) – The Applicant signed and returned form stating “ I am aware of the above preparations and agree to have Terminix Canada perform pest control service in suite No 303 located. “

AUGUST 29, 2016

Sometime during the day, Terminix Canada cancels their scheduled appointment with Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy. But it is not until 3:01 pm, one minute after the scheduled time frame run out, that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy decided to now try and notify the Applicant of the cancellation via an email.

( Referring to Document # 19) – Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy emailed the Applicant at 3:01pm stating ” I have been trying to call you at the phone number in your file of 647-960-6873, not there is no answer and voicemail is not set up.” 28 minutes later at 3:29 pm, Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy now decides to send the Applicant a text message to a phone number that she suddenly found that has been in the Applicants file since July 24, 2015.

( Referring to Document # 20 ) – The text message reads “ Hi Allison did you get my email? Pest control screwed up and will now be here tomorrow at 9 am. I am sorry “

( Referring to Document # 20 ) – 5 minutes later at 3:34pm the Applicant replies “ I just got it thanks “

( Referring to Document # 20 ) – 1 minute later at 3:35pm Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy stated “ Great thank you I will be around with them in the morning “

( Referring to Document # 20 ) – 9 minutes later at 3:44pm the Applicant replies “ Ok “

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.

Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy emailed the Applicant at 3:01pm stating ” I have been trying ( not tried ) to call you at the phone number in your file of 647-960-6873, not there is no answer and voicemail is not set up.”

( Referring to Document # 2, 4, 5 ) – The facts are that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy stated that she had been “ trying to call you ( the Applicant ) at the phone number in your file “. This is the same file that contained the Applicants new number since July 24, 2015. That is a month and a half after the Applicant moved into her unit in the building and almost 14 months before Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy needed to find it.

What Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy wants the Human Rights Tribunal to believe is that even with at least 2 documents from the Applicant and 1 from Alto Properties Inc. with the Applicants new phone number on them in her file.

Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy somehow did not notice 3 documents in her attempts to locate a contact number for the Applicant throughout the day when she was “ trying to call ” her.

( Referring to Document # 20 ) – The facts also are that if you look at the provided picture by Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy of her Alto Properties Inc. company cell phone. You will note at the top of the company cell phone itself it says “ Allison 303 –

And still Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy wants the Human Rights Tribunal to believe that she could not find the Applicant’s new phone number in her file or on her Alto Properties Inc. company cell phone?

Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy inherited this Alto Properties Inc. company phone from the previous superintendents, Alto Properties Inc. employees And as they had been in contact with the Applicant on numerous occasions. Tt has to be assumed that they program the Applicants new number into the phone at the time they received it from her. As if they didn’t, they would have to go to the office every time they wanted to get in contact with the Applicant to get her new number from her file to call her.

It appears that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy was deliberately calling the wrong number “ 647- 960-6873 “ to get in contact with the Applicant. As proof from her email to the Applicant dated August 29, 2016 at 3:01 pm.

It appears that at some time between 3:01pm and 3:29pm, Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy inexplicably returned to the office and to the Applicants file looking for a new phone number that she believes she missed the first time.

Suddenly during the second review of the Applicants file, Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella now astonishingly notices the Applicants new phone number in the required areas of at least 3 Maintenance Request Forms dated July 24, 2015, August 22, 2015 and August 26, 2015.

At that point Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy now decided that she was NOT going to TRY and call this new number she found for the Applicant in her file to verify if it worked and/or was still the Applicants phone number.

Instead Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella would now send a text to this new phone number, despite not even knowing if the number was still associated with the Applicant after a year of it being on file.

Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy NEVER mentions that she had tried to text the Applicant at her old number. And yet for some inconsistent reason, Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy now decides that texting this unverified number is better than just “ trying ” to call it.

Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy figured that instead of calling the Applicants new number, where she could get immediately verification that it was the Applicants, like she tried to do with old number.

Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy suddenly thought calling the newly found number was not an acceptable idea and now thought it would be an extraordinary idea to just text this unverified new number, 29 minutes after the scheduled appoint with Terminix Canada had pasted and wait to see who, if anyone would respond.

Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy had no idea if the new number she sent the text to was that of a landline or a cell phone line. But she still blindly sent the text anyways hoping that it was an actual cell phone line to the Applicant.

Looking at the Applicants cell phone number, there is absolutely no way of telling in today’s world what is a cell phone number verses a landline number. And somehow Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy was so inclined to know that this new number she incredibly found the second time around in the Applicants file was that of a cell phone number.

With this advanced knowledge, Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy decided to texted the new number without ever calling it to verify that it was in fact a cell phone line or if that number even still belonged to the Applicant.

Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy stated “ I have been trying to call “ the Applicant on multiple occasions and not getting her as “ there is no answer and voicemail is not set up.”

It appears that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy wants the Human Rights Tribunal to believe that she called “ trying ” ( not tried ) the wrong number on multiple occasions hoping that suddenly the Applicant during the day would set up her voicemail account or answer?

The Human Rights Tribunal has to wonder how many times Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy deliberately called the wrong number before 3:01pm before she finally figured out that the number was not working?

What is amazing, is that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy figured that it was not easier to just go to the Applicants unit and knock on the door to inform her of the cancelation during the day. Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy had no reason to believe that the Applicant was not at home waiting in her unit.

But instead Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy waited until 3:01pm to email the Applicant, and at 3:29pm to text the Applicant at an unverified number about the cancellation of Terminix Canada from earlier that day.

So the Human Rights Tribunal has to ask, why did Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy: Pretended to call during the day on numerous occasions “ trying “ ( not tried ) a number she knew did not work and had “ no answer and voicemail “ set up after the first time?

Wait until 3:01pm, 1 minute after the scheduled time to send an email to the Applicant that Terminix Canada was scheduled to be at the Applicant unit between 11 am and 3pm?

Wait until 3:29pm to send a text to what she hoped was a working cell phone number for the Applicant?

Suddenly think it was easier to text the unverified number than, just pick up her phone and call it? Like she did with the wrong number where she had been “ trying to call ” on multiply occasions during the day to get in contact with the Applicant.

Decided to email the Applicant than go to the Applicants unit door and knock to inform her of the cancelation and rescheduling for the next day.

Decided not text the wrong number throughout the day, but then figured out was best to text the new number she found?

When the Applicant read the text message at 3:34pm, she responded “ I just got it thanks ”. The Applicant automatically assumed that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy had followed the require proper procedures when requesting entry into her unit as it is mandated by the Ontario Residential Tenancies Act.

It is not up to the Applicant to make sure or verify that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy had followed the mandated rules in the Ontario Residential Tenancies Act when agreeing to any schedule appointments via a text.

The Applicant safely assumed and had no reason to believe that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy did not serve unit door as she routinely did, with the required and proper Notice of Entry for 24 access as mandated by the Ontario Residential Tenancies Act.

( Referring to Document # 21 ) – That means Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy would have had to serve the Notice of Entry at 9:00am that same morning for access the following morning at 9am. But the facts are that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy NEVER notified the Applicant in writing as required the Ontario Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, Ontario.

Entry with notice

27 (1) 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 under the following circumstances:

Entry without notice

26 (1) A landlord may enter a rental unit at any time without written notice,

in cases of emergency; or
if the tenant consents to the entryAT THE TIME of

Now even if Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy wishes to state that a text and/or email are to be considered as written notice. 3:01pm until 9:00am is only 18 hour’s notice of entry. Therefore voiding Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy rights to access to the Applicants unit the next day at 9:00am.

The reality of the situation is that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy has never clarified what time pest control actually cancelled their appointment, but it can be assumed that as a professional business like Terminix who have a solid and a reputable history of customer satisfaction behind them. It would be hard for anyone to assume that Terminix wait until 3:00pm to cancel an 11:00am to 3:00pm appointment.

That in turn would mean that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy could have easily learned of the cancelled appointment from Terminix pest control much earlier that day, and just decided to sit on the information until at the earliest 3:01pm, when she sent out an email instead of just picking up the phone or going to the unit itself to notify the Applicant.

It appears that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy had more than enough alternative options and choices to inform the Applicant of the cancelation, but she instead chose the worse possible methods of getting in contact with the Applicant to give her the cancellation information, via an email.

It appears that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy again just enjoyed the idea of, and was trying to deliberately inconvenience and stress the Applicant by making her sit around waiting for an appointment that only she knew was never going to happen that day

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.

Was Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy hoping that the Applicant could not be presence the following day when she took it upon herself to reschedule the Terminix Canada to return under the 24 hour time period as mandated by the Ontario Residential Tenancies Act?

Was Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy hoping that this would be perfect opportunity to get into the Applicants unit without anyone being present so she could look around and report back to Alto Properties Inc. owner and his son Alto Properties Inc. owner on what she had seen and found?

Was Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy hoping that the Applicant would refuse?

Was Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy hoping the family dog/pet, Cassie would not be locked down and therefore she and the Terminix Canada technician would be unable to enter the unit?

It appears that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy was hoping for any of these above scenarios so she could serve the Applicant with a N5 – Notice to End your Tenancy for Interfering with others, Damage or overcrowding as a way to build a case to have the Applicant and her family removed from the building.

AUGUST 30, 2016

( Referring to Document # 20 ) – Even though the day before Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy stated that Terminix Canada would be there at 9:00am in her text to the Applicant on “ Pest control screwed up and will now be here tomorrow at 9 am ”

As the Applicant and her husband had previous appointment to attend downtown at 1:00pm, they left the unit at preciously 11:30am, which gave them 1 1/2 hours to take the subway to where they had to go. At that time, Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy and Terminix Canada had not yet come to the Applicants unit.

Again the pattern appears to be that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy could not be bothered to be considerate, cooperative, respectful or have the common decency to notify the Applicant of the delay.

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.

Later that afternoon when the Applicant and her family returned home to their unit. The Applicant and her husband forward a letter to Alto Properties Inc. owner and his son Alto Properties Inc. owner and Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy in regards to the recently installed Swann Outback Camera & Video Recorder unit on the elevator that faced directly into their unit when exiting the elevator and entering their unit

The Applicant and her husband stated that they would like, ( what they assumed at the time was just a still motion camera ) the camera moved a few inches to the left as to avoid it looking straight into their unit when both the elevator door and their unit door were open.

( Referring to Document # 22, 23, 24 ) – Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy responded with a lecturing, long winded email that stated “ Good Afternoon Allison, I hope this email finds you well. Please accept this letter as intended, for informational purposes and to show you the view of the camera in the elevator. I have attached a picture, that shows your door and apartment number but there is no way it shows inside your apartment, nor any others, even if the apartment door is opened fully. It is the same view on each floor and we tested the view when it was first installed with our neighbour, as we are aware of the regulations. This was taken with the device located in the elevator. This device takes pictures, not video, that are sent to software on my personal computer, and it does not record audio. We set it up this way so we can get pictures of whomever was vandalizing the elevator door. It works on motion detection and takes a picture of people entering and exiting the elevator, or anyone marking on the elevator door, and is not against the law. Due to the persistent markings of the elevator door we had to do something to catch them, especially after painting the door as vandalism is against the law and people can be charged for it. This was taken after someone left the elevator and went to enter your apartment, we can’t even tell who it is. It is not much different than the video taken from our camera system when someone enters an apartment, just from a different angle and isn’t in video. Actually, from our system I would be able to see whom it is entering your apartment. There is a sign in the Lobby stating that we do have video surveillance on the property and as part of that we can have an camera in the elevator. Once the new elevator is installed it will have a camera installed like the others on the floors. We have a camera on each floor and thought the video don’t show each individual apartment number , or door, it is easy to see where people are coming and going if you know the building and here units are This is not illegal either and is in most buildings these days. I hope this eases your mind. We cannot move it in the elevator as this camera requires direct sight to the problem area, which is the elevator door. We are working on getting the new elevator installed before the holidays so this camera will be removed at that time for a new one to be installed that works with our security system. If you have any other issues, or questions, you are welcome to contact me. Also, I was at your door this morning with Pest Control but there was no answer and the technician refused to enter as your dog was growling and barking, so your apartment was not treated. ”

( Referring to Document # 25, 26 ) – Alto In the letter Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy responded to the Applicant letter that stated “ The device takes pictures, not video ” It is clear from the attached documents about the device Swann Outback Cam Camera& Video Recorder that was placed in the elevator that it is equipped to take 30 frames per second of video recording.

So back in August 2016 when Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy stated to the Applicant that the Swann OutbackCam camera did not take videos, she was obviously again misquoting the facts and misleading the Applicant about the unit in the elevator, that in fat could in fact takes video recordings.

This means that while the Applicant and her family were worrying about only pictures being taken of inside their unit, they should have also been more concerned that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy could be reviewing videos and possible audio from their conversations from inside the elevator and their unit while getting off the elevator and going into their unit

With the past history of Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy clearly at times out right lying, or deliberately presenting misleading facts to try and prove her point, along and all of her previous and future actions and unprofessional conduct.

Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy could have been very well been video recording inside the elevator and the Applicants unit and there is no way for the Applicant to prove it, as only Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy had access to the unit SD card and the videos and possible audio stored on it.

The provided picture from Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy in the email has to be a snippet from an actual video recording.

Why would a motion detection camera take a picture of the Applicants husband standing still at the unit door waiting for the elevator door to close, and not when he was leaving the elevator?

Logic and common sense say the camera would take a picture of the Applicants husband standing in front of the elevator door while it was opening onto their floor. Would the motion of the elevator door opening not trigger a motion camera to take a picture?

In the snippet provided by Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy from her video recording, there is nothing moving and still Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy wants the Applicant and the Human Right Tribunal to believe that a motion detection camera took a picture while there was nothing moving.

At this point the Applicant would also like to address the issue of when she asked if Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy if they could move the video recorder to the left or to another wall inside the elevator.

Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy replied that they “cannot move it in the elevator as this camera requires direct sight to the problem area.”

( Referring to Document # 27, 28 ) – As you can see with the supplied a photos from the Applicant of the camera and its view, its desired “ direct sight ” view could have easily achieved by simple moving the camera 6 inches left or onto the south/east corner of the elevator.

( Referring to Document # 29, 30, 31 ) – In fact since this previous letter and refusal to cooperate or be considerate of the Applicants privacy and concerns. Alto Properties Inc. owner and his son Alto Properties Inc. owner put in a new elevator and security video camera system. They subsequently placed the new security video camera in the same request area that the Applicant was requesting over a year earlier.

The newly installed security video camera position, only continues to prove what the Applicant has been claiming, that their “ direct sight to the problem area. ” can still be achieved when moving the camera back on August 30, 2016. When Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy clearly lied and was unwilling to be cooperative or respectful to the Applicants privacy and concerns about the video camera looking into her unit.

So the Human Rights Tribunal has to wonder is what was Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy really referring to when she said “ the problem area ”

Was Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy really implying that she wanted direct sight into the Applicants unit because the Applicant and her husband were what she considered to be the “ problem area ”?

Was Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy really implying that she wanted to listen to the Applicant and her family while on the elevator?

It is obvious that the only “ direct sight to the problem area. ” that could not be seen by moving the old video/camera 6 inches to the left or to the south/east area of elevator was that of the view into the Applicants unit.

Again this is proven with the installation of the new security camera in the south/east corner of the elevator.

It appears that the real reason Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy did not want to move the Swann OutbackCam video recorder was because it would no longer be able to record videos of what’s inside the Applicants unit.

The Human Rights Tribunal needs to consider that by Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy not moving the camera, what was the real “ direct sight to the problem area. ” that she was really afraid of losing?

Also in the same email Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy stated “ We cannot move it ( camera ) in the elevator as this camera requires direct sight to the problem area, which is the elevator door. ”, “ I have attached a picture, that shows your door and apartment number but there is no way it shows inside your apartment, nor any other, even if the apartment door is opened fully ”

What Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy wants the Human Rights Tribunal to believe is that even though the snippet/still capture from a video clearly shows more than half of the Applicants unit doorway, that even with the door “ opened fully ” that somehow there is a magical barrier that blocks the video camera from recording past the threshold of the units door .

It is pretty obvious to anyone, even Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy that anyone can stand in the elevator and look into the Applicants apartment while the elevator door and the unit door are open at the same time.

This is not a hard situation to achieve as the units door is directly in front of the elevator, and the elevator door stayed open for a much longer period of time than it takes to exit the elevator and go into the unit.

( Referring to Document # 24 ) – In fact if you look at the picture provided by Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy you can actually see that Applicants husband standing at the unit door with his hand on it, waiting for the elevator door to shut behind him before going in to the unit.

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 did the Applicant and her family have to wait for the elevator door to close behind them when exiting the elevator and going into their unit. The Applicant and her family decided that they would just start taking the stairs whenever possible to avoid the hassle of having to stand in the hallway and wait for the elevator door to close before entering their unit.

The only time they would only use elevator is when they needed it for such things as brining in large amounts of groceries, laundry, bring up or taking down the kids bikes or the kids were tired/sick etc.

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.

Also the Applicant and her family all had to be out of the unit and in the hallway with the unit door closed before they could push the button to call the elevator to their floor. This was done as to avoid the elevator showing up and being able to taking videos/pictures while the Applicant or her family were still in the process of leaving the unit.

And well Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy statement “ I have attached a picture, that shows your door and apartment number but there is no way it shows inside your apartment ” is correct. It again is only correct because the unit door is closed.

Looking at the provided video snippet by Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy you will notice that more than half of the unit door is visible in the video cameras view. It is pretty obvious and pretty ridiculous for Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy to state that if the door is full opened (90 degrees) that you still cannot see into the unit.

It is again painful obvious to anyone, including Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy that if the unit door is fully open ( 90 degrees ) that the next obvious thing to be seen and recorded by the video camera or seen by anyone inside the elevator would be inside the Applicants unit.

One has to wonder what Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy thinks you would see if the unit door was open at a 90 degree angle?

Now let us for a moment flash forward to December 2017.

Alto Properties Inc. owner and his son Alto Properties Inc. owner and Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy are actively involved in the repair and installation of a new elevator system.

There can be no doubt that the new video security system is placed in the same area that the Applicant and her husband were requesting back in August 2016. And again at that time Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy stated that this same positioning of the old video camera was not option as “ We cannot move it ( camera ) in the elevator as this camera requires direct sight to the problem area, which is the elevator door. ”

So at this time the Human Rights Tribunal needs to wonder how is it that this new video security system is capable of viewing the “ direct sight to the problem area. ” while being placed on the south/east corner of the 5 foot wide elevator, whereas the old previous video camera could not?

It is clear from Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy who provided a snippet from a video from the old video camera, that moving the old video camera the 3 feet to the east wall of the elevator would have in fact only increased the view of the alleged “ problem area ”.

With the installation of the new video security system in the exact same spot that was previously suggested by the Applicant and her husband, it only confirms that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy’s false claim and lie that the “ problem area ” was the elevator door. That fact is, that it had to be the Applicants unit door that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy was really trying to view and not the elevator door.

These above facts cannot be argued by Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy as her actions by refusing to move the old video camera back in August 2016, claiming that current positioning of camera was the only view that allowed for “ direct sight to the problem area, which is the elevator door. “ was untruthful and fabricated.

With the installation on the new video camera system, it only confirms what the Applicant stated in her previous letter on August 30, 2016 that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy had a deep desire to assess their standard of living and report back like a good little worker to Alto Properties Inc. owner and his son Alto Properties Inc. owner on what she can see in the videos.

With the installation on the new video camera system, it only confirms that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy could have moved the old video camera, but just refused to because she knew that it bothered, inconvenienced and stressed the Applicant and her family and this gave her a sense of pleasure.

AUGUST 31, 2016

( Referring to Document # 32) – The Applicant and her husband than sent an email at 8:45am to Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy requesting the names “ of all the owners and their contact information for my application to the Landlord Tenant Board. “

( Referring to Document # 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 ) – Alto Properties Inc. and employee Stella Reddy responded at 14:45 to the Applicants email that was patronizing, lecturing, long winded and at times inaccurate email that in the end basically stated “ Unfortunately, I cannot give you their last names, due to PIEDA, the Privacy Act, ”

“ Hi Allison, Unfortunately, I cannot give you their last names, due to PIEDA, the Privacy Act, without their permission and at the moment they are both on vacation and out of the country until Monday September 5, 2016 so I can’t even ask them for permission at the moment. If you are applying to the Landlord and Tenant Board, you need to use the registered company name of Alto Properties Inc. that I gave you earlier. This is the company website: http://altoproperties.ca/ As I mentioned, this is a registered business for Real Estate and Property Management and personal names cannot be used for LTB, as they will throw it out as It isn’t a private home but an apartment building. When you apply to the Landlord and Tenant Board for residential issues it has to be in the company name, not personal names. If you are unsure, please call them at 416-645-8080 for advice if you want on how to complete the forms. If you go there they have people that may help you as well. If you need assistance with the forms I have no problem helping you with it either, just let me know. I can also help you navigate the Landlord and Tenant Board website and look up anything with the Residential Tenancies Act. You are also welcome to check out the following websites for more information. The website below is very informative. http://toronto.ontariotenants.ca/index.phtml I got this from their website. Scarborough Community Legal Services 695 Markham Road, Suite # Scarborough 416 – 438-7182 This website below is where you will find various orders that have already been issued with the Landlord and Tenant Board for various things. https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onltb/ I have no problem providing information to you as I have no issues with any tenant applying to the Landlord and Tenant Board and have helped many navigate the regulations. “

Upon reviewing the PIPEDA information supplied by Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy it is clearly does not apply. The website stated “ The Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) is the federal privacy law for private-sector organizations. It sets out the ground rules for how businesses must handle personal information in the course of commercial activity. ”

Here is just another example of Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy trying to mislead the Applicant and her family into believing something that was not true, like the previous example of the BBQ letter, elevator camera view and its video recording capabilities.

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.

Sometime in the late afternoon Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy quietly places an N5 on the Applicants door as to not alert the Applicant or the pet dog Cassie of her presence.

It was not until after7:00pm when the Applicants husband arrived home he found the N5 on the units door .

The Applicants husband brought the N5 asked the Applicant “ Did the kids go to school today? “ The Applicant replied “ Yes, why? “ The Applicants husband stated that there was a N5 on the outside of the unit door. It was concluded that it had to been placed there between 4:00pm and 7:00pm after the Applicant had came home with the kids from school/grocery store.

( Referring to Document # 38, 39, 40) – Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy N5 – Notice to End your Tenancy

Details of events “ As per 24 Hour Notice given August 22, 2016 we scheduled Terminix Pest Control to treat your apartment for cockroaches ( August 29, 2016 ) as part of a block, but entry was not gained due to dog at the door barking and growling and there was no answer. A signed form was returned by you that you would be prepared and Notice of Entry asked that all pets be secured, but was not. As a result treatment was not completed and this interferes with your neighbor’s interests, as well as the Landlords, to control these cockroaches in these apartments. We will require safe access for this treatment to be completed. ”

( Referring to Document # 41, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49 ) – The Applicant and her husband later that evening at 8:55pm sent an email to Alto Properties Inc. owner and his son Alto Properties Inc. owner and Alto Properties Employee Stella Reddy that stated.

“ Dear owners and Stella ( Alto Properties ) I want to acknowledge that I have received your frivolous and empty threat of eviction due to YOUR INABILITY TO GIVE PROPER NOTICE. As my memory serves me, your original notice that I signed and agreed to was dated for: Monday August, 29, 2016 between the hours of 11:00 am to 3:00 pm. On this above date, you notified me at 2:01 pm via an email and not by a phone call that you had cancelled that appointment after 3 hours of me waiting, and you had already rescheduled for the next day at 9:00 am without okaying it with me or getting my signature for the Tuesday August 30, 2016 pest control appointment.

( NOTE: It has been corrected using Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy own paper work/email that the time was actually in fact 3:01 pm when she email the Applicant. The revised statement should have originally read )

On this above date, you notified me at 3:01 pm via an email and not by a phone call that you had cancelled that appointment after 4 hours of me waiting, and you had already rescheduled for the next day at 9:00 am without okaying it with me or getting my signature for the Tuesday August 30, 2016 pest control appointment.

These are your ( Stella ) exact words: “Magical Pest Control screwed up our service date and has moved treatment to tomorrow at 9 am for this building. I am very sorry about this but it is out of my control. Treatment will be done tomorrow at 9 am. ” It is obvious that Louie, Antonio and yourself ( Stella ) could not be bothered to ask anyone if it was convenient for them, nor did you care if it even was. Obviously you had some deep desire to get into everyone’s unit as fast so you could ( I assume

) to assess their standard of living and report back like a good little worker to Louie and Antonio on what you had seen. There is no other logical reason for the pest control to come back immediately the next day less than a 24 hour period later. It could not be the cock roaches as they have been present in this building since I moved in over a year ago. So I am unclear as to why you could not reschedule the pest control for at a minimum couple of days later? This would allow people to make any arrangements they needed to have someone there when you enter their units. Believe it or not, people are not comfortable with strangers in their apartments, even alleged superintendents that have been working in this field for 16 years in Canada. Noting that the previous date that you set for pest control was set in and about a week prior to them coming. Suddenly on this day, you NEEDED pest control to be there STAT the following day. I guess that Louie, Antonio and yourself ( Stella ) think that people do not have to go to work, nor do they have any type of errands, appointments or business to take care on any given day.

Apparently Louie, Antonio and yourself ( Stella ) did not care that everyone emptied their cupboards, pulled out their stoves and refrigerators and waited 3 hours for an appointment that never happened that was arranged by you

Apparently owners and yourself ( Stella ) did not care that everyone emptied their cupboards, pulled out their stoves and refrigerators and waited 4 hours for an appointment that never happened that was arranged by you.

Instead of the 3 of you being considerate to everyone else needs, and the fact that you have now asked the tenants to do pest control back-to back days. The 3 of you decided that you would do what you want, when you wanted and how you wanted. Under the act it clearly stated:

(1) 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 under the following circumstances:

I may not have been in school for a while, but when I last check 2:00 pm on Monday August, 29, 2016 until 9:00 am Tuesday August, 30, 2016 is ONLY 19 hours. This obviously does not fall with in the 24 MANDATED time frame.

I may not have been in school for a while, but when I last check 3:01 pm on Monday August, 29, 2016 until 9:00 am Tuesday August, 30, 2016 is ONLY 18 hours. This obviously does not fall with in the 24 MANDATED time frame.

Once you did not meet YOUR OWN timeline that YOU created for pest control, YOU decided to reschedule without considering anyone else’s ability to meet your needs to have this done on back- to-back days. It did not become mine or any other tenant’s problem when you could not met your arrangements with pest control. We as tenants are entitled to a 24 hour written notice and I would expect someone who claims to have been an alleged superintendent for 16 years in Canada, would have a much better and clearer understand of the act with its clear wording. But being that you are a bully in nature, you just tried to set a date and time and expect everyone to fall in line with YOUR needs. Apparently you deliberately misread the act and were trying to use the Entry Without Notice clause to get into my unit.

(1) A landlord may enter a rental unit at any time without written notice,
in cases of emergency; or
if the tenant consents to the entry at the time of

Which we both know that you cannot apply this to the August 30, 2016 date. Up until this very moment, I am still confused as to what was the big hurry to get pest control into everyone units? I suspect that there is more to this than just pest control issues. I also need to address the fact that you stated in your email, and to everyone involved that pest control would be here at 9:00 am on August 30, 2016. And yet you did not knock on my door until around 11:30 am I am told. I am sure that your video footage would confirm that. That is a 2 ½ hours gap from when pest control was supposed to be here according to you. Pest control had to do 3 apartments on the 4th floor before reaching my floor ( 3rd ). That means if pest control was on time, it took them 50 minutes to do each unit on the 4th floor with a little powder sprayed behind the refrigerator an stove and some gel in the cupboards. Upon speaking to other tenants that did receive the pest control treatment. Pest control was in and out in approximately 5 minutes. So I can only conclude that again you inaccurately stated what time they were coming. I again guess the Louie, Antonio and yourself ( Stella ) think that tenants have nothing to do for 2 days in a row other than sit around waiting for your timelines to come and go? So with the above now clarified, I know what to express my thoughts about your deliberately inaccurate and false N5 legal document. I do not appreciate Louie, Antonio and yourself ( Stella ) harassing and threating me and my family with eviction purely based on the issue that I told you in an email this morning, that I was going to file a complaint with the Landlord and Tenant Board based on the issue of the camera you have facing into units. 203, 303,403 and 503. There is no room to interpret this spiteful act as being any form of coincidence or happenstance. It was only after I emailed you ( Stella ) at 8:45 am on Wednesday August 31, 2016 for the names of the owners of the building for my application for the Landlord and Tenant Board. That suddenly I am now being targeted and given a deliberately inaccurate and false N5 legal documents that PROMISE to get me evicted based YOUR INABILITY TO GIVE PROPER NOTICE. It amazes me that more than 24 hours had passed before you suddenly decided that there was a need to give me this inaccurate and false M5 legal document threatening eviction after learning of my intent to take an issue in front of the Landlord and Tenant Board.

Correction

It amazes me that more than 24 hours had passed before you suddenly decided that there was a need to give me this inaccurate and false N5 legal document threatening eviction after learning of my intent to take an issue in front of the Landlord and Tenant Board.

It also amazes me that I was in fact given over 24 hours of time before I was served with your deliberately inaccurate and false N5 legal document. And yet I could not get that same courtesy in regards to the pest control wanting to come into my unit on back-to-back dates. You have been nothing but a bully since you enter this building as the superintendent. I want to inform you that I no longer wish for you to seek me out to speak to me anymore. If you wish to speak to me regarding something related to my unit or the building, you need to put it in a letter or email from this point forward. I WILL NOT communicate with you were a paper trail cannot be made and followed. I have to say that from the moment I met you, I had the strange feeling that you had some kind of issue with me. You asked inappropriate questions, at first you refused to accept my rent on the grounds that you “ were not comfortable “ with taking it, and then the excuse changed to it was “ a liability issue.” Now there is the issue of Louie, Antonio and yourself ( Stella ) placing a camera that looks into my unit and takes pictures. Add this threating and intimidating N5 eviction legal document that is based on information the 3 of you know is deliberately inaccurate and false. Has only strengthened my beliefs that I am being targeted by the 3 of you. Let me make this very clear for you Stella, Louie and Antonio. I am not sure why it is that suddenly everyone has taken such a sudden interest in trying to build a case on me and wanting me out of YOUR building. I am not sure if sudden on of you realized I was black, maybe someone realized that my children were mixed, or because I am on Social Assistance. I mean it could very well be that because my partner is white and that inter-racial relationships are frowned upon by you 3 white people and is not tolerate or welcomed in YOUR building. But I do know that the problem starts with you, Stella. I have lived here for over a year without ANY issue and suddenly I am having issues with Louie, Antonio and yourself ( Stella ). You not wanting to accept my rent, threating me with eviction if I don’t pay my rent via cheques or money order, even after paying with cash since I moved in. I don’t know if Louie and Antonio never had the nerve or courage to act upon their hatred for me and my family, and now that the old superintendents are gone and you’re in. Maybe now they have suddenly found themselves the MARTER that they can rally behind? Seriously, the 3 of you give me an N5 form that threats me with evictions based on everyone knowing that the information that is to be provided is deliberately inaccurate and false. By threating to present this deliberately inaccurate and false legal document to the courts as a legal document, you would be acting in bad faith. The N5 that has been presented to me by Louie, Antonio and you ( Stella ) is at worse misleading. It certainly violates the basic standards of honesty in dealing with others and it would be recognize just as that in any civil lawsuit. Let us not even start to discuss the issue the serving me with this deliberately inaccurate and false legal document and how it was done purely to be spiteful and, to send me a message that I should not question the actions of the owners or staff of 859 Kennedy Road. I now would like to address the issue of our past conversation Stella, where you ask my where I was “from?” I do not appreciate your ignorance and stereotypes in thinking that because I am black that I could not be born in Canada. I also do not appreciate you asking me if my children were “malado”. I did not think that I need to explain this to you Stella, but these are terms and questions that are no longer acceptable in society, and the fact that you felt comfortable enough with me to ask these questions after only speaking to me for a brief time. Says to me that you have some form of personal issue that need to be dealt with. I also found it offensive that you said that you have been an alleged superintendent for 16 years here in Canada. I am perplexed as to why you felt the need to include the word “Canada” at the end of your sentence? I can only guess, were you trying to imply that because I am not white, that I could not have been in Canada for 16 years? Or is it that you feel that your 16 years in Canada makes you a better person and better qualified to be an alleged superintendent than someone who was a superintendent abroad? Maybe you said it because you were an alleged superintendent in Canada for 16 years, so your opinion and views on being a superintendent have more weight and value over someone like myself who was born abroad? I would like to take this opportunity to inform you Stella. I never had any doubts that you lived and work in Canada. In fact I had absolutely no reason to even question what country you have been alleged a superintendent in. Apparently you feel that being a superintendent in Canada comes with some kind of Canadian privilege and/or pride attached to it? I guess you could not have just said that you have been a superintendent 16 years. If you were a superintendent in Italy, would you have said the same thing? In speaking with you it appears to me that you are considered yourself a great superintendent because you were born and raised and work your whole life in Canada. I think at this point in time, I need to clear the air of some misunderstanding the 3 of you have about me. If anyone of you think that you are going to threaten and try to bully, force and intimidate me and my family to bow down to you and you deliberately inaccurate and false legal document. You have totally fooled yourselves and miss read me. Under the Charter of Rights and Freedom, the Criminal Code and the Landlord and Tenant Board. I have the right to file an application with the Landlord and Tenant Board, and I have the right to do without fear of ANY form of repercussions from ANYONE. I have the right not to fear for my safety or the safety of anyone known by me.

Under section 23 of the act, no landlord shall harass, obstruct, coerce, threaten or interfere with a tenant.

Clarification

Under section 23 of the Residential Tenancies Act, no landlord shall harass, obstruct, coerce, threaten or interfere with a tenant.

Owners and yourself ( Stella ) obviously thought I was just some dumb, uneducated nigger who was willing to bow to your servant ways and not challenge your actions in YOUR building. Let me inform you that Unit # 303 have nothing but pride in ourselves and we all stands very tall with our heads held high. We don’t bow or serve anyone! So you can take your deliberately inaccurate and false N5 legal document and shove it up your ass, and I dare you to file it as is! The 3 of you have now taken your personal ideology towards myself, my family and our color and made it into a personal agenda to make mine and my family’s life as uncomfortable and as inconvenient as you can. I am happy to say and I am thankful that I was not raised with some much hatred in my heart towards other races. Hopefully one day you will find God and he will help you heal your feels towards others that don’t look like you. I have some serious doubts that you Stella, have ever been a superintendent in any building. I would strong suggest to Louie and Antonio that they do a more thorough background check upon yourself as you have absolutely no idea about the Land Lord Tenant Act and how to interact properly with tenants. Your attempt to try and bully/force tenants to remove their BBQs off their balconies, and to remove everything that is “none seasonal” , all the while again deliberately quoting misinformation and bylaws to try and reinforced your views and impose your will on all the tenants of this building. It appears that me that your signature and pattern of deliberately lying and misquote wrong information to try and prove a point is constant. Louie, Antonio and yourself ( Stella ) childish attempts to threaten, harass, intimidate and targeting me, along with every other issues in this letter will be addressed in my application to the Landlord and Tenant Board. This is the same application that you were trying to intimate me from filing in regards to the cameras looking into mine and other units. Please do not respond to my email. I do not need for you to try and deny or even try and justify to me that you are not an undercover racist. I do not need to know that you have black friends, or that you eat and love “Caribbean food” and that you have a “ Black Person ” in your family that you love or that there is Black in your bloodline. Because I really don’t care! ”

As you can see the Applicant addresses many issues in the letter to Alto Properties Inc. and with Alto Properties Inc. Employee Stella Reddy such as;

Their inability to give proper Notice of Entry as mandated by the Ontario Residential Tenancies
Alto Properties Inc. Employee Stella Reddy strange desire to get into the Applicants unit unaccompanied.
The lack of respect, cooperation and considerate towards the Applicant and her family for cancelled appointments.
Alto Properties Inc. Employee Stella numerous pattern of creating misleading
Alto Properties Inc. Employee Stella attempt to retaliate, via N5 for the Applicant stating that she was going to file a complaint with the Landlord tenant board about the camera in an email earlier that
Alto Properties Inc. Employee Stella illegal N5 dated for August 31,
The camera in elevator that looks directly into the Applicants unit when exiting
Alto Properties Inc. Employee Stella sudden refusal to take the Applicants cash rent
Alto Properties Inc. Employee Stella previous racist and prejudice statement and
Alto Properties Inc. & Alto Properties Inc. Employee Stella desire to target and center out the Applicant.
Alto Properties Inc. and Alto Properties Inc. Employee Stella attempts to intimidate and threat the Applicant with
Alto Properties Inc. and Alto Properties Inc. Employee attempts to build a case for eviction against the Applicant and her

At this point the Human Rights Tribunal now needs to understand the whole dynamics of the lies in the illegal N5 that was given to the Applicant by Alto Properties Inc. Employee Stella.

What Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy deliberately failed to mention in her illegal N5 served to the Applicant was that in their original Notice of Entry give on August 22, 2016 for Terminix Canada was dated for entry on August 29, 2016 between the hours of 11am and 3pm and not August 30, 2016 as they stated on their N5.

Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy deliberately failed to mention in her illegal N5 served to the Applicant is that Terminix Canada had cancelled on the original scheduled day of August 29, 2016 sometime before 3pm and Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy waited until 3:01 by email and 3:29pm by a text message to an unverified number to notify the Applicant of the Terminix Canada cancelation after the scheduled time frame.

Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy deliberately failed to mention in her illegal N5 served to the Applicant is that the Applicant was only given 18 hours notice instead of the mandatory 24 hours which is mandated by the Ontario Residential Tenancies Act.

It is unmistakeable that based on the act of Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy giving the Applicant an illegal N5 for the state reasons was further proof that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy had jumped the gun in her attempts to build a case to have the Applicant and her family removed from the building.

There were absolutely no legal grounds for Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy to issue a N5 to the Applicant. The Applicant was well with in her rights and in fact was willing to accommodate Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy and the Terminix Canada technician the following day at 9:00am to 11:30am. But the Applicant and her husband were unable to just sit and wait around for a second day in a row, hoping that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy and the Terminix Canada technician would show up 2 1/2 hours late.

The Applicant and her husband allowed Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy and the Terminix Canada technician a 2 1/2 hour grace period without out again, any form of update from Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy as to what was going on or if they were even still coming, before they eventually had to leave.

( Referring to Document # 40) – And for all their actions, Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy got pissed off and issued them a N5 threatening them with eviction. Giving them “ 7 days to stop the activities or correct the behaviour described on page 2 and avoid eviction. ”

After Alto Properties Inc. owner and his son Alto Properties Inc. owner received the above letter from the Applicant via the same email. Neither Alto Properties Inc. owner or his son Alto Properties Inc. owner could not be bothered to reach out to the Applicant in any manner about her concerns or inquire as to what was going on with their new employee Stella Reddy.

It appears that Alto Properties Inc. owner and his son Alto Properties Inc. owner either approved and/or knew what their employee Stella Reddy was doing and did not want to get involved, and/or,

Alto Properties Inc. owners and his son ere not in the slightest way curious as to what was going on with their employee Stella Reddy and all of her racist and prejudice comments that she had previously made, and/or about her suspicious behaviour towards the Applicant suddenly.

The only inference that the Human Rights Tribunal can draw from Alto Properties Inc. owner and his son Alto Properties Inc. owner ack of interest in this whole situation is that they were more concerned about keeping their new labour, new employee Stella Reddy than they were about what was transpiring in their building between these parties.

It appears that Alto Properties Inc. owner and his son Alto Properties Inc. owner did not find this whole situation and the letter from the Applicant concerning enough to even inquire or investigate, even though they have never had any problems with the Applicant or her family in regards to late rent payments, behaviour, upkeep of the unit or in passing conversations.

In fact the Applicants husband would speak with Alto Properties Inc. owners on a regular basis, almost weekly as he would meet him while taking out the family pet Cassie. Their conversations were always friendly, polite and usually on a wide selection of topics.

So again, the Human Rights Tribunal has to wonder why all of a sudden Alto Properties Inc. owner and his son Alto Properties Inc. owner were so intent in not getting involved or even inquiring as to what was going on with the unproblematic Applicant and her family and his brand new employee Stella Reddy after living there for over a year.

SEPTEMBER 1, 2016

( Referring to Document # 50) – The Applicant receives a Notice of Enter from Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy for Terminix Canada to come to her unit the following day on September 2, 2016 between the hours of 1:00pm to 5:00pm.

It needs to be note that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy did not place the Notice of Entry on the unit door until sometime after 9:30 am when the Applicants husband got home from taking the kids to school.

Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy also could not be bothered to knock and stay or just walk away after knocking as to draw attention to the door. She could have also just slid the 1 page Notice of Entry under the Applicants door.

But instead what Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy decided to do was to balance it lightly between the door frame and the door handle of the front door of the unit we hope before 1:00pm.

Because of Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy quiet actions, It was not until 3:10pm when the Applicants husband went to pick up the kids from the school bus that he received the Noticed of Entry for the following day.

Now Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy may have technically served the Applicant within the proper time frame for the September 2, 2016 entry. But it again goes back to the pattern of why is it that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy tries to manipulate the situation so as the Applicant learns of it at the very last minute

Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy again choses to inform that Applicant about the Terminix Canada in the worse possible way. Resting in the door and walking away. No knock, no phone call, no email, no text, nothing.

It is clear that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy enjoys the idea and hopes that the Applicant wouldn’t learn of the scheduled appointment until the latest possible time and maybe that would allow for her to get into the Applicant unit unaccompanied.

Again Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy books an appointment at her own convenience and does it within a 1 day period. Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy could have booked it for the 5th, 6th or 7th and so on. Why was it so urgent that it had to be booked for the following day?

SEPTEMBER 2, 2016

Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy and the pest control technician showed up at the Applicants apartment. The pest control technician was a short, mid-aged Asian gentleman.

The pest control technician entered the unit at the request of Applicants husband while Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy decided she would stand in the hallway and wait.

While inside the unit, the pest control technician looked around the kitchen area and was very impressed by the cleanliness and the steps that the family had taken to prevent roaches from spreading into their unit.

The Applicants husband had cocked every based board around the entire unit, all open food was in plastic containers, every hole that could be seen was cocked and there was roach powder everywhere (refrigerator, stove, cabinet tops, and base of closets, front door, and rads ect. )

In fact the pest control technician was so impressed, that when he left the unit to meet Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy in the hallway, he stated “ this is one of the best units I has ever seen in regards to pest control. “ and that she was “ lucky to have such tenants in her building. ”

The pest control technician stated “ if everyone was a concerned as this family is about roaches, you would have absolutely no issues in this building. ” The pest control technician then turned to the Applicants husband and said “ good job. ”

This interaction went without any issues between the Applicants husband and the pest control technician.

At that point, instead of Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy just walking away with the pest control technician. Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy decided to stand in the hallway and lecture the Applicants husband about the consequences and hazards of using roach powder in the unit.

Why did Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy suddenly feel the need to lecture the Applicants husband about roach powder and the use of it?

Does Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy considers herself a pest control expect who is qualified to provide lectures on such issues like the health and safety uses of roach powder?

Why didn’t the pest control technician get involved in the conversation and mention that he, himself had concerns about the unit and the “ over powdering ” as he was the only one in the unit and who actually seen it?

Let us remember that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy decided that she was not going to enter the unit and decided that she was going to stand in the hallway and wait. And still somehow she knew that the Applicants unit was being “ over powdered ” and that she needed to lecture the Applicants husband on the consequences of their actions.

Again it appears that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy was trying to accomplish two things during this interaction with the Applicants husband.

She was trying to reinforce how smart she is in regards to being a superintendent and how much knowledge she had acquired over her 16 or 20 years as a “ super attendant here in Canada, “ and/or

By talking down to the Applicants husband in the presence of the pest control technician as if he was stupid, uneducated and did not have the common sense to read the back of the roach powder bottle before using it. She was trying to provoke a negative response out of him hoping that she could later use to help justify the removal of the Applicant and her family as an interference issue on another N5.

In fact Applicants husband did inform Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy that he did read the instruction and warning label on the back of the bottle and was well aware of any risk.

PRO – ANT AND ROACH PYRODUST

DIRECTION FOR HOUSES: Lightly coat the areas where the insects crawl and hide such as cracks and crevices, underneath built-ins, around pipes and drains, in storage cabinets, behind medicine cabinets, in electrical outlet boxes, garbage cans and in attics and basements. Repeat as necessary, probably once a month. Contact insects directly with the dust when possible. Do not dust pets. Bed bugs: dust both side of mattress and beds. Fleas: thoroughly dust sleeping quarters of pets and floors. “

PERCAUCTIONS: KEEP OUT OF REACH OF CHILDREN, Avoid inhalation of dust. Wash hands and other exposed skin after handling.

TOXICOLOGICAL INFORMAYTION: Skin contact and inhalation may be allergic to sensitive people. “

By the time the above interaction took place between Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy and the Applicants husband. The Applicant and her husband could very much see that due to Alto Properties Inc. lack of concern, and Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy actions, they were now trying to build grounds to have them evicted from the building.

Also Applicant and her husband figured that from the previous actions of Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy, she was trying her best to make the environment around the family so uncomfortable and inconvenient so the Applicant and her family would just get tired of it all, and move out as noted in the Applicants emailed letter dated August 31, 2016. “ I have to say that from the moment I met you, I had a strange feeling that you had some kind of issue with me. You asked inappropriate questions, at first you refused to accept my rent on the grounds that you “ were not comfortable: with taking it, and then the excuse changed to it was “ a liability issue “ Now there is the issue of ? and yourself ( Stella Reddy ) placing a camera that looks into my unit and takes pictures. Add this threating and intimidating N5 evection legal document that is based on information the 3 of you (Alto Properties Inc. owners and son and Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy Stella Reddy ) know is deliberately inaccurate and false. Has only strengthened my beliefs that I am being targeted by the 3 of you. ”

OCTOBER 4, 2016

( Referring to Document # 51) – On this day Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy completed a yearly inspection of the Applicant’s unit. At that time the Applicants husband was home during the inspection and showed Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy all the problems with in the unit that have existed since August 2015 that still have not been repaired.

Missing outside storm window
Bathroom ceiling
Stove not working

Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy stated she “ will need to have a contractor come in to fix the bathroom ceiling and Staff will be by Friday to measure the missing window so I can give the measurement to the glass company. ”

Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy also stated that she “ will work on getting another stove for you immediately. ”

This interaction between Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy and the Applicants husband went without any issues.

OCTOBER 7, 2016

( Referring to Document # 52) – Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy husband, staff showed up at the Applicants unit and measured the missing outside storm window that needed to be replaced.

The Applicants husband and Alto Properties Inc. employee had a brief discussion about the bathroom ceiling and when they can expect a contractor in to fix it.

This interaction between Alto Properties Inc. employee and the Applicants husband went without any issues.

OCTOBER 11, 2016

( Referring to Document # 53 ) – The Applicant and her family find a letter in their mailbox by Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy stating that there will be an annual fire inspection on October 19, 2016 between 9:00am and 5:00pm.

OCTOBER 12, 2016

( Referring to Document # 54 ) – Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy serves the Applicant with a Notice of Entry for Annual Fire Inspection for October 19, 2016, even though there was a previous Annual Fire Inspection of the entire building 4 months earlier in June 2016 that was done by Alto Properties Inc. employee and her husband Alto Properties Inc. employee

OCTOBER 14, 2016

( Referring to Document # 55 ) – Two days later, Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy now serves the Applicant another Notice of Entry dated for October 17, 2016 between 9:00am and 5:00pm to again measure and replace the missing outside storm window.

October 17, 2016

Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy and Ace Glass technician were supposed to attend the Applicants unit to measure and replace the missing outside storm window between the hours of 9:00am and 12:00pm.

The Applicants husband waited inside the unit from 9:00am to 11:30am when he had to run down the street ( Kennedy Road ) to take his daughter her lunch that she forgot when leaving that morning to catch the bus for school.

Upon leaving the unit at 11:30am the Applicants husband placed a yellow stick it/post it note on the unit door stating “ Sorry, be right back, daughter forgot lunch ”

When the Applicants husband returned to the unit at 11:40am, he noticed that the stick it/post it note was still on the door and no one was waiting for him and there was nothing else was present.

At 1:30pm the Applicants husband again left the unit to go to All Premium to get some meat for the family’s dinner that night.

When the Applicant returned at 2:40pm he noticed Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy sitting in the office on the computer, listening to the radio. After he entered the unit, he noted the time because he realized that had only 20 minutes before he had to go and meet with a lunchroom staffer named Val from the kids school, where he would also be picking up his children from the school bus around the corner at 3:10pm.

At 3:00pm as the Applicants husband left the unit early and as he opened the unit door and a fold piece of paper fall onto the floor in the hallway.

( Referring to Document # 56 ) – The Applicants husband picked up the paper, opened it and realized that it was a 2nd Notice of Entry dated for the very next day – October 18, 2016 for Ace Glass between the hours again of 9:00am and 12:00pm.

On the 2nd Notice of Entry Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy stated “ Due to scheduling with their contractors. They had to reschedule for tomorrow. “

The Applicants husband thinking about his timeline form earlier that day, the Applicants husband realized that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy had to have served the 2nd Notice of Entry sometime after he returned from the grocery store no earlier than 2:40pm, and no later than 2:59pm.

This meant that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy was again requesting entry in the Applicants unit without EVER GIVING THE APPLICANT THE REQUIRED 24 HOURS PROPER NOTICE as mandated by the Ontario Residential Tenancies Act when requesting entry into a unit that day.

Like on August 29, 2016, it once again appears that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy had more than enough time and working options to inform the Applicant of the cancelation by Ace Glass throughout the day, but instead Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy chose not to inform the Applicant no less than 2 hours and 40 minutes at the earliest time after the schedule time frame had pasted.

At this time Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy can no longer say she could not find a working phone number for the Applicant, therefore she could not have texted her, called her, emailed her or even came to the unit and just knocked on the door and spoke to Applicant or whoever answered the door or simple just slide a note under the door explaining the situation.

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.

The Applicant and her husband at this time began to wonder if Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy even booked an appointment for the day? It seemed like a very strange coincidence that on 2 different occasions, two different professional companies had to cancel at the last minute, unexpectedly after being book so many days in advance.

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

So again, why is it that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy not;

Knocked on door?
Slide a note under the door?
Call the Applicant?
Text the Applicant?
Email the Applicant?
Tell the Applicants husband as he came into the building at 2:40pm?

Was it, as it appears that again Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy was hoping that the Applicant or her husband could not be presence the following day after she took it upon herself to reschedule the return of Ace Glass for the following day?

Was Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy was hoping that this could be another great opportunity for her get into the Applicants unit without anyone being present so she could look around and report back to Alto Properties Inc. owner and his son Alto Properties Inc. owner on what she had seen and found

It could appear that maybe Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy was hoping the Applicant would refuse them entry so she could serve her with a second illegal N5 – Notice to End your Tenancy for Interfering with others, Damage or overcrowding with in a 7day period as a way to continue to build a case to have the Applicant and her family removed from the building.

It does appear that again Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy was deliberately inconvenience the Applicant and her family by rescheduling Ace Glass the following day without even considering the idea of just consulting with the Applicant to see if it works for her, since it was under the 24 hour time period as mandated by the Ontario Residential Tenancies Act.

With the rescheduling by Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy of Ace Glass the following day. The Applicant and her husband realized that this was almost the exact duplicate situation like the Terminix Canada scheduling issues back on August 29, 2016.

( Referring to Document # 57, 58 ) – That night at 6:38pm the Applicant forwarded a letter via an email to Alto Properties Inc. owners and his son and employee Stella Reddy addressing once again her concerns in regards to their deliberately inability and willingness to cooperate or to be reasonable.

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. ”

The Applicant did not provided any reason for not allowing the Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy and Ace Glass access to her unit, nor did she have to. Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy’s Notice of Entry clearly could not have fallen under the 24 hour time period as mandated by the Ontario Residential Tenancies Act.

The Applicant also addressed the issue of a 2nd annual fire inspection within a 4 month period. The Applicant stated “ In regards to the fire inspection dated for October 19, 2016. The previous super attendants have already performed this same fire inspection ( smoke detectors ) in or about June of 2016 changing the batteries. There is no absolutely no need for a second inspection in my unit within a 4 month time period. “

Please note that the word Annual that is placed in the City of Toronto and/or Fire Marshal bylaws for testing, meaning it is required only 1 time a year.

Annual is defined as – occurring once every year.

What Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy was performing would be considered a Semi-Annual fire inspection of the Applicants unit which is not required by the City of Toronto or Fire Marshall Office.

Semi-Annual is defined as – occurring twice a year; half-yearly

( Referring to Document # 54 ) – Even Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy acknowledges and refers to it as “ Annual Fire Inspection ” on the Notice of Entry dated for October 19, 2016.

The Applicant goes on to address the issue of how it appears that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy is just setting dates at her own convenience and could not be bothered to have the common decency or the respect to even at least TRY ONCE, to work with the Applicant and her family in regards to these off- the-cuff appointments she sets.

The Applicant stated “ I have given you access to my unit on 3 separate occasions already within the last month and half, and each time you have made no attempts to try and accommodate myself or my family in regards to the time and dates and if they worked for us or not. ”

“ It also again appears to me that you are also deliberately screwing up dates in hopes of again trying to get into my unit alone with someone being there. I am not sure what your fascination is with getting into my unit unattended?

Correction

“ It also again appears to me that you are also deliberately screwing up dates in hopes of again trying to get into my unit alone without someone being there. I am not sure what your fascination is with getting into my unit unattended? “

The Applicant also clearly stated that she was tired of people coming in and out of the unit and nothing getting done. She was also tired of Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy setting up appointments for her own convenience and then no one shows up and that she is never giving any form of notice or update of the cancellation until the scheduled time has expired even though there is enough time and reliable working methods to get in contact with the her.

Instead Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy always choses the most inconvenient way to contact the Applicant, and it is always after the scheduled time frame has passes.

“Obviously you are not capable of, or just don’t care about what myself and family have planned for the week enough to following up with contractors and informing me in a properly, professional or even in a reasonable manner of any “sudden” changes. So from this date forward we will work together to ensure that things are done properly and respectfully of everyone schedules and rights. ”

OCTOBER 18, 2016

( Referring to Document # 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69 ) – The following day after getting the Applicants letter refusing Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy entry for her semi-annual fire inspection, and for the under 24 hour time period – Notice of Entry. Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy is now more than willing and is selectively and conveniently now is able to use the Applicants email address to communicate with her.

( Referring to Document # 59 ) – Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy at 8:18am stated “Good Morning Ms. Read, Thank you for the attached letter that we received last evening. If it is agreeable with you, property owner of Alto Properties Inc. would like to meet with you to discuss this matter, today around 6:00 pm, in the office located in the lobby of the building. If this is acceptable with you, please let us know. ”

( Referring to Document # 60 ) – The Applicant replies in an email at 8:27am – “ Hello, the owner is more than welcome to come to my house any time after 7:15 when I get home to speak to me. Please let me know if that works for him. ”

( Referring to Document # 61 ) – Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy replies in an email at 8:48am

“ After hearing back from Mr. Liscio the time of 7:15 pm is good for him, but he would prefer the meeting be held in the office. Is this ok with you? ”

( Referring to Document # 62 ) – The Applicant replies in an email at 8:49am – “ I would prefer my home. Is this ok with him? ”

( Referring to Document # 63, 64 ) – Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy replies in an email at 9:51am – “ Upon speaking with the owner, meeting in your apartment is not a preferred meeting place for a business matter and as such he would prefer meeting in the office, as it is there for this purpose. He hopes that you would understand this requirement. ”

( Referring to Document # 65, 66 ) – The Applicant replies in an email response at 10:10am – “ Sorry, but I am not comfortable with that environment and it does not work for me or my family. If you wish to email with your concerns please feel free to forward it to me. I have already expressed my concerns in my letter. As you are the requesting a meeting with me, I am comfortable with no meeting at all. ”

( Referring to Document # 67, 68, 69 ) – Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy replies in an email response at 12:12pm – “ Please understand that the owner cannot accommodate your request to hold a meeting in your apartment. As a meeting place cannot be agreed upon, the meeting is now cancelled. ”

So at this time we are going to go through the email exchange between the Applicant and the owner ( via Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy )

( Referring to Document # 59 ) – In the first email sent to the Applicant at 8:18am by Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy, she clearly stated “ If it is agreeable with you, ” “ If this is acceptable with you, ”

( Referring to Document # 61 ) – In the second email sent to the Applicant at 8:48am by Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy, she clearly stated “ but he would prefer the meeting be held in the office. Is this ok with you? “

It is clear in the first 2 emails that the Applicant has been given the option 3 times to choose if she wishes to attend the office for a meeting or not.

The Applicant chooses not to go based on her previous experiences which always ended with someone trying to intimidate and threaten her into compliance with threats of eviction

( Referring to Document # 60, 62 ) – So the Applicant twice offers an alternative solution and that is have the meeting in her home verses the office.

“ Hello, the owner is more than welcome to come to my house any time after 7:15 when I get home to speak to me. ”
“ I would prefer my home. ”

( Referring to Document # 63, 64 ) – Alto Properties Inc. Owner replies via Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy “ Upon speaking with the owner, meeting in your apartment is not a preferred meeting place for a business matter and as such he would prefer meeting in the office, as it is there for this purpose. He hopes that you would understand this requirement. ”

So by this point we can see that Alto Properties Inc. owner replies via Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy that he feels that his preferences and understanding are more important and take priority over that of Applicants.

( Referring to Document # 63, 64 ) – We also now begin to see that suddenly in the third email the meeting, they now try an bully the Applicant into compliance by stating it is now a “ requirement ” to have the meeting in the office and that her home is not an option.

At this point Alto Properties Inc. owner replies via Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy has basically informed the Applicant that if she wishes to get her concerns heard and maybe addressed, she has no other option other than she MUST attend the “ required ” office meeting.

So why was Alto Properties Inc. owner and Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy so committed and absorbed with the idea of the Applicant attending a meeting in the office?

Did Alto Properties Inc. owner and Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy hatch some kind of plan on how they could ambush the Applicant by putting her in an environment where she was uncomfortable and unaware off, so they could try to again intimidate and threaten her into silence with threats of eviction?

( Referring to Document # 65, 66 ) – And for these above reasons the Applicant replies “ Sorry, but I am not comfortable with that environment and it does not work for me or my family. ”

It appears what Alto Properties Inc. owner and Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy were not trying to do is address the issues brought forward in the Applicants letter, but they we trying to establish some form or argument for the Landlord Tenant Board in advance that they were trying to cooperate in resolving these above issues.

So instead of Alto Properties Inc. owner and Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy trying to be cooperative and reasonable with the Applicant. They tried to pigeonhole her into a meeting that they knowingly knew was never going to happen in their “ required ” office.

So what was it that was preventing Alto Properties Inc. owner from attending the Applicants unit for the meeting?

What the Applicant and her husband found interesting is that the Alto Properties Inc. office at the time was so small that there was no way that Alto Properties Inc. owner and Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy, the Applicant, her husband and their two young children could have logically fit into the office.

Again, was this situation of cramped everyone inside something that Alto Properties Inc. owner and Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy thought about and were anticipating when insisting on the “ required “ office meeting?

Did Alto Properties Inc. owner and Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy think that by cramming everyone into such small quarters, they could ambush the Applicant so they could try to again intimidate and threaten her into silence with a threat of eviction?

After the Applicants last email where she stated “ Sorry, but I am not comfortable with that environment and it does not work for me or my family. ” “

( Referring to Document # 68, 69. 70 ) – Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy replies at 12:12pm “ Please understand that Mr. Liscio cannot accommodate your request to hold a meeting in your apartment. As a meeting place cannot be agreed upon, the meeting is now cancelled. ”

Later that same day, Ace Glass again cancels for the 2nd day in a row their appointment to replace the Applicants outside storm window in her living room.

Ace Glass sends Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy an email at 8:33am that stated “ Please note we are a small Family business. The glass technician that was scheduled to do the job. Called in to inform us he had to remain home due to one of children had failing ill, had no other option but to remain Home. Thanks Mario”

So as a refresher, it has been established that Ace Glass cancelled both their appointments to replace the Applicants storm window, two days in a row.

( Referring to Document # 56 ) – The 1st was “ Due to scheduling with their contractors “ according to Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy own hand written note.

( Referring to Document # 70 ) – The 2nd appointment was cancelled due to “ glass technician “ child “ failing ill “ which would have obviously be unscheduled, as no one can schedule their child to be sick.

Now let us note that Ace Glass informs Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy of the cancelation at 8:33am that day.

( Referring to Document # 60 ) – That is after right after the Applicants email at 8:27am – “ Hello, the owner is more than welcome to come to my house any time after 7:15 when I get home to speak to me.

Please let me know if that works for him. “

( Referring to Document # 61 ) – And before Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy reply email at 8:48am “ After hearing back from the owner the time of 7:15 pm is good for him, but he would prefer the meeting be held in the office. Is this ok with you? “

And it is also subsequently before;

The Applicants email at 8:49am
Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy’s 2 page email at 9:51am
The Applicants email at 10:10am
And Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy’s 3 page email at 12:12pm

So the question is, at what time was Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy going to tell the Applicant the appointment was cancelled? Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy had 2 separate opportunities 8:49am, 10:10am to view the email when reviewing the emails sent by the Applicant.

Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy also had 3 separate opportunities 8:48am, 9:51am and 12:12pm to view the email sent by Ace Glass while sending her own emails to Applicant.

Now Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy is going to make the argument that the Applicant stated in her letter to Alto Properties Inc. owners and his son and herself from the night before “ 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 convince, and once again you failed to show up as scheduled. ”

So upon Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy receiving the letter the night before, one is curious as to why she didn’t call Ace Glass and cancel the appointment.

If Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy was unable to reach a physical person, there is a good chance that at a minimum, a professional business like Ace Glass would a have a voicemail system in place to record messages for just this situation.

And if Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy did intend to call that day, at what time did she intended to do it?

It was already 8:33am that same day and they were scheduled to arrive between 9:00 and 12:00pm. How did Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy know that Ace Glass would not be showing up before or at 9:00am as to make sure the job gets done A.S.A.P. as a curtesy and professionalism for their rumoured cancelation from the day before?

Again it is obvious that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy never called Ace Glass to cancel, nor could she have been bothered to email them, but why?

What we do know is that again, Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy tries to portray the Applicant as being uncooperative and unreasonable only because the Applicant wants to enforce her rights FOR THE REQUIRED 24 HOURS PROPER NOTICE which are mandated by the Ontario Residential Tenancies Act.

Again it appears that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy was going to seize this opportunity to create a situation where she could file another illegal N5 – Notice to End your Tenancy for Interfering with others, Damage or overcrowding as a way to continue to build a case to have the Applicant and her family removed from the building.

OCTOBER 19, 2016

Sometime mid-morning Alto Properties Inc. owner knocked on the Applicants unit door. The Applicants husband answered the door and allowed Alto Properties Inc. owner, Alto Properties Inc. employee and his fire inspector/contractor into the unit, despite this had now become a Semi-Annual fire inspection which is not required by the City of Toronto or Fire Marshall Office.

This is confirmed and was clearly stated in the Applicant October 17, 2016 letter that “ The previous super attendants have already performed this same fire inspection ( smoke detectors ) in or about June of 2016 changing the batteries. There is no absolutely no need for a second inspection in my unit within a 4 month time period. ”

Upon entering the Applicants unit, Alto Properties Inc. owner stated in a courteous and respectful manner “ I read the letter Allison sent the other night, I would like to talk with you guys about it? ”

The Applicants husband stated “ yeah, that’s Kool, when? ”

Alto Properties Inc. owner replied “ What time will Allison be home? ”

The Applicants husband replied “ in about an hour ”

Alto Properties Inc. owner replied “ Great, when we are done here, I will come back in about an hour and we can talk about it than ”

It appeared that unlike the son, Alto Properties Inc. owner, Alto Properties Inc. owner Louie Liscio had no problems coming to the Applicants unit the next day for a Semi-Annual Fire Inspection and to discuss the previous letter sent on October 17, 2016.

Alto Properties Inc. owner Louie Liscio was courteous and respectful when speaking with the Applicants husband about the issues in their previous letter sent October 17, 2016.

While checking the smoke detector in the unit, the inspector/contractor noticed that the smoke alarm battery had been unplugged, but was still in the unit.

The Applicants husband explained that back in June just before Alto Properties Inc. employee and Alto Properties Inc. employee were fired, that the Applicant had spoken to Alto Properties Inc. employee about the unit continuously beeping.

The Applicants husband explained that they had even changed and put in a lower quality battery and also a higher end battery into the unit and the problem persisted. So they had no choice than to unplug the battery while waiting for Alto Properties Inc. employee to replace the unit.

During this time the family had lost track of the problem and never thought to re-inform Alto Properties Inc. a 2nd time on the problem.

( Referring to Document # 6 ) – But, the Applicant at the time also explained to Alto Properties Inc. owner and the fire inspector/contractor that they still had 4 other working smoke detectors in the unit.

The Applicant opened the two bedroom doors immediately to his right and pointed that there was a working smoke detector in each room on the ceilings. And he also explained that there was also a 2nd smoke detector in Applicants closet

The Applicants husband also walked into the living room area, where he pointed out the 4th working unit above the computer desk area.

Alto Properties Inc. owner returned to the hallway and requested that Alto Properties Inc. employee replace the battery and if the problems still persist, they will have to change the unit itself.

After the Alto Properties Inc. employee removed the old battery and replaced it with a brand new one. Alto Properties Inc. owner stated “ We will come back in about an hour to see how everything is. ”

The Applicants husband replied “ Kool ”.

The Applicants husband and Alto Properties Inc. owner also had a brief discussion about the bathroom ceiling and when they can expect a contractor in to fix it.

At that point everyone, Alto Properties Inc. owner, Alto Properties Inc. employee and the fire inspector/contractor left the unit.

Just under an hour later, Alto Properties Inc. owner, Alto Properties Inc. employee and the fire inspector/contractor returned to the Applicants unit. Again the Applicants husband invited them in and explained that the unit had once again started continuously beeping.

At that time Alto Properties Inc. owner heard the beeping and asked, Alto Properties Inc. employee to replace the old unit with a new one. Alto Properties Inc. employee completed the task and the fire inspector/contractor was satisfied with the work.

Before leaving Alto Properties Inc. owner stated “ Allison is not here yet? ”

The Applicants husband replied “ No, not yet, I just talked to her on the phone, she will be here just now. ”

Alto Properties Inc. owner stated “ okay, I will come back in a bit, and we can talk when she gets home ”

Again the Applicants husband replied “ Kool. ”

With this interaction between the Applicants husband and Alto Properties Inc. owner, Alto Properties Inc. employee and the fire inspector/contractor, there were absolutely no issues as the Applicants husband was fully cooperative.

After the Applicant got home shortly after everyone left, they realized that after night had fallen, that Alto Properties Inc. owner had lied about his “ I read the letter Allison sent the other night, I would like to talk with you guys about it? “ and his numerous offers to return.

Alto Properties Inc. owner lied as a tactic and a tool to negotiate his way into the unit for the Semi-Annual fire inspection without ever having any intentions of returning to deal with the Applicants concerns about Alto Properties Inc. or racist employee Stella Reddy

( Referring to Document # 71 ) – Later that day Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy sends an email at 16:48 to only Alto Properties Inc. owner.

“ Hi property owner, Just so you are aware, the techs are done with the units. The Staff is not impressed as they rushed and didn’t give him much time to make notes. Louie stayed with them as well. imagine, about an hour to do all the units here. That is rushed. They got into 303. They found the detector not working there, as the battery was missing. Was told by her partner that he removed it after battery was replaced in June as it was still beeping and said that they were told it would be replaced. Yet, in the letter she sent she didn’t say any of that, just that it was fine as the battery was already changed. No mention in her letter that it still beeped, that they removed the battery due to this beeping. Want me to have them charged under the Fire Code? I checked the file and no mention of replacing the smoke detector, just that the battery was replaced due to beeping in June. Regards, Stella ”

This emails confirms that;

The smoke detector was checked on Ocotber19, “ Wednesday, October 19, 2016 at 4:18 PM ”
Confirms June’s Fire Inspection by Alto Properties Inc. employee “ just that the battery was replaced due to beeping in June. ”
Alto Properties Inc. owner and Alto Properties Inc. employee were present at the Semi-Annual Fire “staff is not impressed as they rushed and didn’t give him much time to make notes. “ “ Louie stayed with them as well. “

( Referring to Document # 11 ) – It is at this point that again the Applicant and her husband become confused by Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy statements, just like her letter of August 1, 2016, where it was proven that she had clearly and deliberately written this previous letter in a way to cast an unfavorable light upon the Applicant and her husband.

Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy stated “ They found the detector not working there, as the battery was missing. “.

This is opposite to what the Applicants husband clearly stated and admitted that he had unplugged the battery, and that it was not missing.

It appears that either Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy was misinformed by her husband Alto Properties Inc. employee, or she figured it sounded worse that the battery had be physically removed verses just unplugged.

Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy stated “ Yet, in the letter she sent she didn’t say any of that, just that it was fine as the battery was already changed. “

Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy statement that the Applicant stated the smoke detector was “ Fine “ is totally inaccurate and in fact the Applicant never made such a claim.

What the Applicant stated was “ The previous super attendants have already performed this same fire inspection ( smoke detectors ) in or about June of 2016 changing the batteries.

The Applicant clearly does not mention the word “ FINE ” and yet again, Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy makes false statements on behave of the Applicant to help her case to try having the Applicant charged under the fire code.

Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy stated “ No mention in her letter that it still beeped, that they removed the battery due to this beeping. ”

Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy is clearly again making up lies to again get permission from Alto Properties Inc. owner to have the Applicant charged under the fire code.

Neither the Applicant nor her husband ever claimed that back in June 2016, had the battery changed due to “ Beeping ”. Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy stated “No mention in her letter that it still beeped ”, it still “ beeped ” after what? The Annual Fire Inspection in June 2016?

Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy stated “ I checked the file and no mention of replacing the smoke detector just that the battery was replaced due to beeping in June. ”

Again Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy is apparently confused as the Applicants husband has NEVER claimed the smoke detector unit was replaced back in June 2016, just that the batteries for all 5 units were replaced.

It appears that at this time Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy is fabricating lies against the Applicant and her husband to Alto Properties Inc. owner.

Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy was making these false statements on behalf of the Applicant and her husband to help her case to try and have the Applicant charged under the fire code.

Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy stated “ Want me to have them charged under the Fire Code? ”

Now saving the best till last. Again we see Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy desire of hate against the Applicant, her husband and family.

It is this type of Obsessive Compulsive Behaviour or OCD that is not normal behaviour. Despite the Applicant having 4 other smoke detectors in the unit that were paid and installed by the Applicant and her husband.

Despite that they did notify the previous Alto Properties Inc. employee

Despite the Applicant and her husband at no times put their own or their children’s lives at risk of death due to inadequate or non-working smoke detectors.

It is clear that the entire email is solely written to cast an unfavorable light on the Applicant and her husband with Alto Properties Inc. owner, but why?

It appears in the end, Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy wanted permission from Alto Properties Inc. owner to “ have them charged under the Fire Code?

What is interesting is that the Applicants husband has videos of the unit #308, just down the hall from them where that smoke detector there has been beeping every 35 seconds since February of this year ( 2018 ). Up until the day this Application was filed.

You can hear the unit beeping from inside the Applicants unit, 5 units away. And yet Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy has never issued any warning letters to correct the fault battery, or possible like the Applicants unit, smoke detector.

Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy has been to units #305 and #306 since they moved out to review the unit before and after renovations. Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy has been in and out of the unit of numerous occasions to show the units. He husband has been on the 3rd floor on numerous occasions, to many to count, to sweep and mop the floors.

In fact at the time of completing this document, Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy was on the same floor entering unit # 306 at 13:15 and 16:30 showing potential tenants the units.

Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy was literally 15 feet away from unit #308 where the beeping could be heard as she walked down the hall, coming and going from the empty unit.

And yet we will assume that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy has still made no request to fix or resolve that problem let alone ask Alto Properties Inc. owner for permission to have the fire Marshall involved.

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.

Again, like her August 1, 2016 letter, it shows that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy had some form of an alternative and personal motive behind her actions.

The Applicant would also like to take this time to point out a few little quirky things about this email. “ Hi property owner, Just so you are aware, the techs are done with the units. Staff is not impressed as they rushed and didn’t give him much time to make notes. Louie stayed with them as well ”

It appears that Alto Properties Inc. employee is now a Fire Inspector expert as he has spoken to his wife Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy about his concern over the “ rushed ” job that was done by the hired professional.

It also appears that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy agrees as she found the need to relay the message to Alto Properties Inc. owner.

It appears that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy is not only an expert on the use of Cockroach powder when she lectured the Applicants husband back on September 2, 1016 in what appeared to be an attempt to bait him into some form of verbal altercation

Now Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy and her Alto Properties Inc. employee now experts on the length of time it should require to check smoke alarms in a 30 +, 5 story building.

But what strike the Applicant and her husband as being interesting is that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy only emails Alto Properties Inc. owner about it. And in fact implies that the father, Alto Properties Inc. owner is part of the problem as he “ stayed with them as well ”, implying that he condoned this “ rushed ” job and never slowed it down so it could be done properly.

It appears that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy has a preference as to who she deals with. Just like the meeting that the two of them tried to set up for the day before with the Applicant. It was Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy speaking on behalf of Alto Properties Inc. owner only.

It again appeared that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy had not included the father in her correspondence with what appears to be her preferred owner Alto Properties Inc. owner.

One has to wonder what is said during these private correspondence between Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy and Alto Properties Inc. owner that the father Alto Properties Inc. owner doesn’t know about?

One has to wonder how much bad mouthing outside of this known email Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy has done with her preferred Alto Properties Inc. owner about his father Alto Properties Inc. owner?

OCTOBER 20, 2016

( Referring to Document # 72, 73, 74 ) – Alto Properties Inc. and Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy serves the Applicant a second N5 – Notice to End your Tenancy for Interfering with others, Damage or overcrowding in a 20 day period. Alto Properties Inc. and Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy second N5 stated “ Wednesday October 12, 2016 – Sent Notice of Entry in apt door for Wednesday October 19, 2016 between 9-5 about Annual Fire Inspection.

Friday October 14, 2016 Approx. 1 pm – Tenant was given Notice of Entry that technician would come Monday October 17 to repair glass in living room.

Monday October 17, 2016 Approx. 11:30 am – Spoke to Ace Glass and was informed that due to contractor not showing up they had to reschedule some appointments and would be here to complete repairs Tuesday October 18, 2016 around 9:00 am. Gave Notice of Entry in apt door to tenant advising them of this as wrote on notice “due to scheduling with their contractors they had to reschedule for tomorrow.” Email attached for reason.”

Monday October 17, 2016 7:38 pm – Received letter from tenant in email advising us that she is refusing entry for Ace Glass to complete repairs and is refusing entry for Fire Inspection. Copy of letter received from tenant explains her reasoning is attached.

Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy confirms what the Applicants husband previously stated that “ he opened the unit door and noticed a folded in thirds piece of paper on the floor in front of the units door in the hallway. “ “ Gave Notice of Entry in apt door ”

Again this is just another great example of Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy distorting the facts and leaving out critical pieces of information that again would have discredited her truthfulness in her attempt to have the Applicant and her family removed from the building.

This again shows how Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy tries to portray the Applicant as being uncooperative and unreasonable only because she wants to enforce her rights which are mandated by the Ontario Residential Tenancies Act.

An example of distorting the facts and leaving out critical pieces of information is when Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy fails to mention that there was no possible way that she could have given the Applicant a 2nd Notice of Entry dated for October 18, 2016 that could have fallen under the mandatory 24 hours which is mandated by the Ontario Residential Tenancies Act.

Which means that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy had no right to serve the Applicant an N5 for something that she, herself had no rights to do.

Another example of Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy distorting the facts and leaving out critical pieces of information is how Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy fails to mention that she again deliberately placed the 2nd Notice of Entry in the apt door between 12:15pm to 3:10pm.

Now the Human Rights Tribunal can only assume she did this to allow more time to pass. Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy placed the October 18, 2016 Notice of Entry, without knocking, calling, emailing or texting.

It appears that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy to allow wanted for more time to pass before the Applicant would have been notified of the cancelled appointment and the rescheduling. Therefore allowing Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy a better chance of inconveniencing the Applicant and/or her husband in hopes of them not being able to be present at the time of the repairs.

You see, Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy was new to the job at this time, she would sit in the office every day from 9:00 to 5:00pm expect during lunch between 12:00pm and 1:00pm as posted on her sign.

So because of this schedule, Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy would see the Applicant and/or her husband leave to drop the children off at the school bus at 8:15am and pick them up at 3:10pm.

Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy had to know that by deliberately placing any short term Notice of Entry on the door between the time of 12:15pm to 3:10pm would result in it not been seen until 3:10pm. This therefore means that more time would pass before the Applicant or her husband would be aware of any changes.

Another example of distorting the facts and leaving out critical pieces of information is how Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy also fails to mention she did not make any attempts to place the short term

Notice of Entry under the door itself, never bothered to knock, call, text or send an email this time to alert Applicant of the cancelation or the sudden rescheduling made by Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy without even contacting the Applicant to see if it worked for her or her husband as it had fallen under the mandatory 24 hours which is mandated by the Ontario Residential Tenancies Act.

Another example of distorting the facts and leaving out critical pieces of information is how Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy also fails to mention is that the rescheduled appoint made by her for August 18, 2016 was also cancelled. This second cancelation was due to an employee/contractor child being sick.

What Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy tries to imply is that she had to cancelled the scheduled appoint with Ace Glass because the Applicant was enforcing her rights which are mandated by the Ontario Residential Tenancies Act. When in fact Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy did no such thing.

It was a good thing that the Applicant enforced her right to the mandatory 24 hours which is mandated by the Ontario Residential Tenancies Act. Because if not, the continuous pattern of the Applicant and/or her husband having to sit around between the hours of 9:00am to 12:00pm waiting for Ace Glass to show up, only to find out after the scheduled time, like the day before, and with pest control on August 29, 2016. That no one was coming to the unit until after the fact when the scheduled time ran out.

Following the pattern. this would have been the 3rd time in a month and a half that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy would have left the Applicant and/or her husband waiting in their unit for an appoint only she knew was not going to happen that day.

What Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy either did not understand or was deliberately challenging in the act is where she is required to give the Applicant 24 hours notice. It appears that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy thinks that the clock starts ticking from the finish time and not the start time.

There is no way that it can be construed that by giving tenant a Notice of Entry at 5:00pm for a 9:00am to 5:00pm visit the next day is giving the tenant a 24 hour notice. It clearly is only giving them 15 hours of notice. But Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy apparently views the situation as a 5:00pm delivery time and a 5:00pm finish time the next day is considered to be giving a tenant a 24 hours notice.

Despite the fact that the Ontario Residential Tenancies Act states “ ENTRY WITH NOTICE

(1) 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 under the following circumstances: ”

Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy also stated: ” Received letter from tenant in email advising us that she is refusing entry for Ace Glass to complete repairs and is refusing entry for Fire Inspection. Copy of letter received from tenant explains her reasoning is attached.”

What Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy fails to mentions is that her N5 was based on the Applicant refusing entry to Ace Glass on October 18, 2016 and for refusing entry for the Semi-Annual Fire Inspection on October 19, 2016

The truth and facts of the situation has been explained very clearly and cannot be debated. Ace Glass cancelled on October 18, 2016 at 8:33am via an email stating “ Please note we are a small Family business. The glass technician that was scheduled to do the job. Called in to inform us he had to remain home due to one of children had failing ill, had no other option but to remain Home. Thanks Mario ”

Again, during this time frame when this email was received by Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy was in the early stages of speaking with the Applicant via emails about a meeting with Alto Properties Inc. owner later that day.

Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy never bothers to mention to the Applicant of the cancellation by Ace Glass even though these was communication between herself and the Applicant via email after receiving Ace Glass email.

And still Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy serves the Applicant on October 20, 2016, 38 eight hours later with a N5 for “ refusing entry ” to Ace Glass. The Applicant did not refuse entry to Ace Glass because; Ace Glass had cancelled their own scheduled 2nd appointment on October 18, 2016 and therefore they did not show up, which means and the actual act of the Applicant or her husband refusing to entry did not happen.

Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy stated the Applicant was “ refusing “ when in fact she was only enforcing her right under the mandatory 24 hours rule in which is mandated by the Ontario Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, Ontario that she had to be notified when requesting entry.

And yet again another example of distorting the facts and leaving out critical pieces of information is how Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy also stated and implies that the Applicants “ refusing entry “ for Semi-Annual Fire Inspection. Even though on October 19, 2016 to Alto Properties Inc. owner Alto Properties Inc. employee and a fire safety inspector/contractor did attend to the Applicants unit for the semi-annual fire inspection.

( Referring to Document # 71 ) – This is confirmed with the email dated October 19, 2016 by Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy herself to Alto Properties Inc. owner at 4:16pm where she stated

“ They got into 303. They found the detector not working there, as the battery was missing. Was told by her partner that he removed it after battery was replaced in June as it was still beeping and said that they were told it would be replaced. Yet in the letter she sent she didn’t say of that, just that it was fine as the battery was already changed. No mention in her letter that it still beeped, that they removed the battery due to this beeping. Want me to have them charged under the Fire Code? I checked the file and no mention of replacing the smoke detector, just that the battery was replaced due to beeping in June. ”

So Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy deliberately made false allegations on a legal document that she had every intention to use to have the Applicant and her family removed from the building. Why else would Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy have created this legal document if she never intended to submit it to a Government agency like the Landlord and Tenant Board?

According to the Canadian government it is A SERIOUS CRIME to lie, or to submit deliberate false information or documents to any government agency in the country.

Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy has a proven pattern of deliberately not notifying the Applicant immediately of any changes, as this is her way of enjoying the idea of inconveniencing the Applicant and her family, and trying to get into the unit without someone being present so she can report back to the owners what she has seen in the unit.

Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy has a proven pattern of deliberately using the worse possible method to communicate with the Applicant when trying to get in contact with her when rescheduling on short notice.

It also needs to be noted that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy had scheduled appoints for 3 days in a row. October 17, 18 & 19, 2016. Again it appears that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy enjoying the idea of inconveniencing and harassing the Applicant and her family.

Why could Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy not have scheduled and reschedule the Ace Glass after the for the 19th during the Semi-Annual inspection?

And if Ace Glass could not attend on the October 19th, than Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy could have scheduled and reschedule for the following week?

Why was Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy booking appoints so close to each other instead of trying to book everything on the same day instead of back to back to back?

That is because Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy again enjoyed the idea of the Applicant and/or her husband having to sit around for 3 days in a row waiting and hopefully having to cancel any previous engagements that were already scheduled.

The Applicant and her husband made it very clear to Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy that she was not going to enter their unit alone under any circumstances if it is not an emergency, and therefore she booked everything intentionally on separate dates to teach the Applicant and her husband a lesson about who was in charge.

And again it appears that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy enjoyed the idea of the Applicant or her husband sitting around waiting for multiple occasions, over a back to back to back day period, with long periods of scheduled wait time on these days.

APRIL 17, 2017

( Referring to Document # 75, 76, 77, 78 ) – The Applicant and her family find again a 4 page letter in their mailbox by Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy stated “ Please remove all storage items from your balcony as only seasonal furniture items are allowed. If you have a BBQ, please remove completely as our balconies do not meet requirements for BBQ’s.”

( Referring to Document # 7, 8, 9, 10 ) – It appears that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy has not yet given up on her mission to have the Applicant remove her BBQ. She has even gone as far too now include some of the same paper work that the Applicants husband supplied her with back on August 2, 2016.

Like in the past where Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy changed her excuse on numerous occasions to try and justify why she could not take the Applicants $121 in cash to pay what owed on her rent. Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy again changed her reasoning for why BBQ’s were now not allowed in the building.

It appears again that the pattern of Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy lying to try and prove a point has continued.

Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy never does clarify what it is exactly in the documents that she is referring to when claiming “ our balconies do not meet requirements for BBQ’s.”

JULY 13, 2017

( Referring to Document # 79 ) – The Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy forwards a letter to the Applicant where she stated “ Dear Ms. Read, We hope this letter finds you and your family well. We are writing to you today concerning the air conditioner units that we can see dripping water from your windows. The one in the bedroom window is running down the building and dripping onto the window sill below and splashing onto the bedroom window and the tenant there cannot open the bedroom window, as the water splashes in the screen onto the inside of her window sill. The water is also starting to cause discoloration to the flashing under the window there. I have pictures if you wish to see but the discoloration can also be seen outside. Please, install a ledge under the bedroom A/C unit so the water drips out past the building and bypasses the windows below so others can open their windows. The air conditioner in the living room window is also dripping water onto the balcony and is running off to the balcony below and needs a bucket underneath to catch the water.

As we all live in a shared space, we need to be considerate of the tenants living below. ”

Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy notes that “ The one in the bedroom window is running down the building and dripping onto the window sill below and splashing onto the bedroom window and the tenant there cannot open the bedroom window, as the water splashes in the screen onto the inside of her window sill. ”

It is clear that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy had spoken to only the wife and not the husband as she stated “ HER window sill ” and that “ TENANT” ( not tenants ) there cannot open the bedroom window “ due to the dripping.

The underlining word here is “ HER. ” Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy is no longer speaking in general terms like she was when she stated early in her letter “ the tenant there ”. It appears that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy pretends to try and personalizes the conversation, trying to convince the Applicant that she had in fact spoke to the female “ Tenant ” of the residents, as to again giving weight to her justification in requesting that the Applicant fix the dripping air conditioner.

That very same day the Applicants husband corrected the problems that were outlined by Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy in her letter. No further action was needed by anyone.

Let’s clarify that if Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy did not pretend to speak to the female “ Tenant ” the letter would have been worded differently.

“ Dear Ms. Read, We hope this letter finds you and your family well. We are writing to you today concerning the air conditioner units that we can see dripping water from your windows. The one in the bedroom window is running down the building and dripping onto the window sill below and splashing onto the bedroom window and the UNIT there cannot open the bedroom window, as the water splashes in the screen onto the inside of THEIR window sill. The water is also starting to cause discoloration to the flashing under the window there. I have pictures if you wish to see but the discoloration can also be seen outside. Please, install a ledge under the bedroom A/C unit so the water drips out past the building and bypasses the windows below so others can open their windows. The air conditioner in the living room window is also dripping water onto the balcony and is running off to the balcony below and needs a bucket underneath to catch the water. As we all live in a shared space, we need to be considerate of the tenants living below. ”

AUGUST 21, 2017

( Referring to Document # 80 ) 305 days passes ( 11 months ) when the Applicant hands in a Maintenance Request Form to have her ceiling in the bathroom repaired.

During these previous 305 days ( 11 months ) Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy makes absolutely no attempts to bring in a contractor to repair the Applicants bathroom ceiling, replace the stove or replace the missing outside storm window in the Applicant unit.

( Referring to Document # 57, 58 ) It appears that Alto Properties Inc. owner, Alto Properties Inc. owner and Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy conveniently interrupted Applicants previous letter dated October 17, 2016

“ If anyone wants access to my unit for the bathroom, in which you started and did not finish since I first moved in, back in June 2015. I will except a few dates to choose from, and I will choose from these same dates and times to let you know what works for me and my family. “, “ So from this date forward we will WORK together to ensure that things are done properly and respectfully of everyone schedules and rights. as a refusal of entry, instead of a request to work cooperatively after the Applicant and her family were scheduled on 3 different occasions for appointments and where left sitting around waiting for hours even though the dates where changed/cancelled, and they were not notified until of the cancelation after the fact by Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy herself.

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.

But instead Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy decided to ignore the Applicant for the next 305 days, rather than speak to their contractors to get a few dates and times and just offer them to the Applicant.

So why did Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy reject idea of working cooperating with the Applicant and ignore her for 305 days?

It appears that…

Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy enjoy the idea that the Applicant and her family having to live with their bathroom ceiling falling
Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy relish the idea that the Applicant and her family having to live with no
Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy got pleasure in the idea that the Applicant and her family having had to live with the unit being cold in fall, spring and
Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy got delight in the idea of again she was inconveniencing the Applicant and her family in so many
Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy consider the Applicant’s previous statements as her way of trying to tell her how to do her job and therefore Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy decided to do nothing to show the Applicant who the boss really
Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy hoped that the Applicant would get tired of her racist and prejudice treatment and would just move

The Applicant stated on her Maintenance Request Form “ The ceiling of the bathroom needs repairing. The plaster is falling apart. Has been like that for a year and half and is yet to be completed. “

The Applicant checks off the Urgent Box as to hopefully get the work done A.S.A.P. as this problem has been ongoing since September 2015 and since Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy took over the building a year and half ago in July 2016.

AUGUST 22, 2017

( Referring to Document # 81, 82, 83 ) The following day Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy places and an information package to Applicant in her mailbox in regards to her Maintenance Request Form sent in the day before. The information package contained a letter address to the Applicant, Notice of Entry dated for August 24, 2017, a photograph of the Applicants Maintenance Request Form.

Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy stated in her letter “ We hope this letter finds you well and enjoying the end of the summer! We are writing to you in response to the maintenance request/entry form we received from you this morning August 22, 2017 in the office drop box. I noted on the form that you checked off this item as urgent, so I am sending you the enclosed information sheet I printed out from the RentSafeTO website concerning service requests so you are aware for future issues. When completing the forms in future, please note we also require the time of the request filled in as well. Link for the information is below: You can also type in search “rentsafeto” and it will come up. It http:///www1.toronto.ca/wps/portal/contentonly?vgnextoid=7bd4b8d74b4bd510VgnVCM10000071d60f89RCRD. I will be inspecting the bathroom ceiling on Thursday August 24, 2017 between 2 — 5 pm, as per the Notice of Entry also enclosed. Once we have an idea of work needed we can arrange for a contractor if it’s extensive, or staff if it’s minor, to complete the repairs. As noted on the entry form, I may need to take pictures so please remove any personal items from the area so they are not in the frame. While we are arranging for the bathroom ceiling repairs I will also be arranging for a glass company to install the missing glass in the living room window before the cold weather come again. Notice of Entry will be given once a date is scheduled for both these items. Please note: It stated that we have to respond to non-urgent requests within 7 days. This means we have to respond to you within that timeframe and let you know what we are doing about your request, not have the work completed. ”

It appears that again Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy could not miss another opportunity to be a bully by lecturing the Applicant about her vase knowledge on how to run an apartment building. Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy also took this opportunity to bully and lecture the Applicant about the use of the urgent and non-urgent boxes on the Maintenance Service Request Form.

Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy wrote 11 lines out of the possible 18 about the use of the urgent and non-urgent boxes. That equates to Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy spent 61% of the letter correcting the Applicants use of the Urgent Box and not the Non-Urgent Box and not about getting the ceiling fixed.

It also appears that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy also took the time to take a picture of the Applicants Maintenance Request Form, print it to prove to her that she did in fact check of the Urgent box and not the Non-urgent box.

It is unclear to the Applicant as to why Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy printed up a picture of her Maintenance Request Form and she just did not photocopy the actual form itself?

And as if lecturing the Applicant on the use of the Urgent Box was not enough, Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy decides to go onto the internet and takes the time to search the City of Toronto’s website to find the Tenant Service Requests Requirements for building owners and prints it up to also give the Applicant.

It is this type of Obsessive Compulsive Behaviour or OCD that is not normal behaviour. Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy had no reason other than to be a bully to go through so much work to address a simple checked box unless she had some personal agenda to enforce and prove her vase knowledge on being a superintendent.

It is this type of Obsessive Compulsive Behaviour or OCD that is not normal behaviour. Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy had no reason other than to be a bully to go through so much work to address a simple checked box unless she had some personal agenda to enforce how stupid the Applicant must be as she is “ Black ”

It is clear that combining the two above statements, Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy Obsessive Compulsive Behaviour or OCD is due to the fact that she wants the “ Black ” Applicant to know she is in charge and why that is.

So instead of Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy just stating in her letter to the Applicant that she might have made an error when checking the boxes, or just ignoring the issue all together. Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy seized the opportunity to try and show how knowledgeable she was in regards to be a superintendent and how the Applicant was irresponsible and careless for not knowing what was the appropriate box when checking.

And Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy even stated “ When completing the forms in future, please note we also require the time of the request filled in as well “

There is absolutely no need for this statement by Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy. How does the lack of a hand written time interfere with the work getting done?

Again this was just another one of Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy Obsessive Compulsive behaviour or OCD moments where she gets to feel good about herself by telling the Applicant what to do and how to do it. It is Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy way of showing the Applicant who again is in charge in the building.

Let us also note that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy, stated that the Applicant must put the time in. This is a self-imposed requirement by Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy. She even tries to convenience the Applicant of this requirement by supplying a web link to support her false claims. Expect the fake link does not support her claims as it did not even work.

The Applicants husband did some quick searching and found the correct link, which looks nothing like the Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy supplied; https://www.toronto.ca/community-people/housing-shelter/apartment-building-standards/rentsafeto-for- building-owners/

( Referring to Document # 84) and the Applicant and her husband noted that it says

Requirements for building owners

A record should be created for each request and must include:

date and time of service request
location of issue (including unit number)
nature of issue
tenant name and contact information
determination of urgent or non-urgent request
any response or action taken by building
You must be able to provide a copy of the information collected from the
You must keep copies of all responses made by the owner or operator in relation to the service

It is actually under the City of Toronto requirements that the building owners/superintendents keep the “ date and time of service request ”

Now this may appear as inconspicuous and not relevant, but it again goes back to the pattern of behaviour by Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy always lying to get what she wants. Just like her Obsessive Compulsive Behaviour about BBQ’s in the building where she has on numerously and deliberately on occasion threatened tenants with legal action if they did not remove their BBQ’s and quoted a City of Toronto bylaw where she has clearly and obviously taken 2 different segments of two different bylaws to make up her own bylaw to try and justify her Obsessive Compulsive Behaviour need to get rid of the Applicants BBQ.

She again is trying to mislead the Applicant with a fake link that does not work and states that time is require by HER, the Applicant to be on a Maintenance Request Forms if work is to get done.

Again, it appears that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy enjoys the idea of lecturing the Applicant just for the sake of lecturing her and trying to show her that she is in charge and to not challenge her authority that has been given to her by Alto Properties Inc. owners and his son Alto Properties Inc. owner.

Why it is that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy takes every opportunity to lecture the Applicant?

Maybe it is because Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy feels threatened by the Applicant and her husband?

Maybe it is because the Applicant is “ Black ” and Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy feels because of her skin tone, she needs to be put in place in regards to Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy pecking order as to who is the smart one and who is the stupid one.

Maybe it is because Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy feels that when she makes up facts and presents them to the Applicant, she figures that she is too stupid to catch them and therefore Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy feels good about herself knowing that she outsmarted the “ Black ” Applicant.

Maybe it is because Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy wants to send an indirect message to the “ Black ” Applicant that just because you’re in a relationship with a Caucasian male, it does not raise your IQ or acceptance/status with her. ( Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy )

AUGUST 23, 2017

( Referring to Document # 85 )The Applicant sends Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy an email at 10:52 expressing her concerns about the visit. “ Hello Stella, I received the letter and the notice of entry. I do not understand why you need to come and see what needs to be done and then make the necessary arrangements to have the work done. Seeing that this is not a new problem you saw the ceiling late year when you came to do your yearly inspection. And did none thing. Just thought that you all were just coming to fix the problem not come take a look and I have to wait again. Not sure for how long this time. Anyways see you tomorrow. ”

AUGUST 24, 2017

Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy knocks on the Applicants door, the Applicants husband opens the door and greets Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy with a “ Hey.” Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy makes a joke about their dog barking and no one being able to go near their door.

The Applicants husband asked “ where is the contractor? ” Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy replied that “ Array was not here today ” and that she could “ prove ” that she or he was working at another of Alto Properties Inc. building that day.

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

As the Applicants husband has never used any form of alcohol in his entire life, and there was no other person present during this conversation. It is clear where the smell of alcohol was coming from, Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy. The Applicants husband replied that “ you’s have looked at it 4 times ” and the Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy replied “ I haven’t! ” and the Applicants husband corrected her and said “ You looked at it last year. ”

Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy replied “ I may have last year ”

At this point the Applicants husband knew that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy had been drinking, as she could not recall looking at their unit back on October 4, 2016 where she made notes of all the issues in the Applicants unit.

Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy on two occasions either stated she did not or could not remember viewing the problem of the bathroom ceiling in the Applicants unit.

The Applicant explained that he was tired of Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy always showing up at the door promising things to get done, and then nothing happens. He stated “ Get a hold of the contractor, and you’s can come at 9:00am anytime next week ” 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. “

Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy replied “ I wasn’t here! ” 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. ”

Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy replied “ I just got back! ” 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. ”

Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy replied that she was now going to call the City of Toronto “ Property Inspector for their area ” on the Applicant and her husband. 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.

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.

The quick facts are that on;

July 25, 2015 to August 4, 2015 – Alto Properties Inc. owner and Alto Properties Inc. employee view the bathroom
August 5, 2015 – Alto Properties Inc. employee has a brief discussion about the bathroom ceiling with the Applicant husband.
August 31, 2016 to September 7, 2015 – Alto Properties Inc. employee has a brief discussion about the bathroom ceiling with the Applicant
August 31, 2015 to September 7, 2015 – Alto Properties Inc. owner has a brief discussion about the bathroom ceiling with the Applicant husband while Alto Properties Inc. employee is present.
August 31, 2015 to September 7, 2015 – Alto Properties Inc. owner has a 2nd brief discussion about the bathroom ceiling with the Applicant
June 2016 – Alto Properties Inc. employee and Alto Properties Inc. employee have a brief discussion about the bathroom ceiling with the Applicant
August 19, 2016 – Alto Properties Inc. owner has a brief discussion about the bathroom ceiling with the Applicant husband while Alto Properties Inc. employee is
October 4, 2016 – Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy has a brief discussion about the bathroom ceiling with the Applicant husband.
October 7, 2016 – Alto Properties Inc. employee has a brief discussion about the bathroom ceiling with the Applicant husband.

This is 9 different occasions when someone from Alto Properties Inc. viewed and discussed with the Applicants husband about getting the bathroom ceiling fixed.

And still on August 24, 2017 all Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy wanted to do is take pictures of the Applicants bathroom ceiling to show her husband, Alto Properties Inc. employee who she lives with in unit #404 so he can see if he can repair it.

( Referring to Document # 82 )This is confirmed in the letter dated August 22, 2017 to the Applicant where Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy stated that her 1st choice to repair the Applicants bathroom ceiling was her husband Alto Properties Inc. employee. “ Once we have an idea of work needed we can arrange for a contractor if it’s extensive, or staff if it’s minor, to complete the repairs. ”

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? He was in the building that day, the Applicants husband seen him cleaning up the garbage area outside the building about 1 hour before Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy appeared at the unit door.

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.

As Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy stated in her letter dated August 22, 2017 to the Applicant, that her husband, Alto Properties Inc. employee was 1st in line to repair the bathroom ceiling “ if it is minor “ and “ if it’s extensive “she will “ arrange for a contractor “

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 was determined back on October 4, 2016 ( 318 days earlier ) by Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy during her yearly Inspection that a contractor was need to fix the Applicants bathroom ceiling.

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.

( Referring to Document # 86 ) At 3:53pm Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy sends out an email to Suzanna Mlakar “ Good Afternoon Suzanna, I hope this email finds you well. I am having an issue here at 859 Kennedy Rd with the tenants of 303, Allison Read, the leaseholder, and her partner, whos name I don’t know. They gave us a work order for some ceiling repairs needed in the bathroom yesterday morning and as they asked for 24 hours notice, I issued one for entry today between 2 pm

5 pm. I just knocked on their door and they refused entry. First when the gentlemen answered the door, he asked where the contractor was and I said I needed to check what work was needed as if it’s too extensive we would have to call a contractor but if it was minor staff could do it. He got very irate, called me a bigot and a racist. Said that I was out to get the black people in the building. He asked why I wasn’t there at 9 am this morning as I live in the building yet I made him wait all day on purpose. I explained I was in Etobicoke till now, that I just got back, and he said I should have been there for 8 am this morning then before I left. This is not the first issue I have had with these tenants and I thought it might be helpful if you, or someone from your office, could come for entry with me to their unit explain to them how this works. When I walked away, they said they were complaining to your office there at Property Standards. I will be issuing a Form N5 for interference and I am checking out how I can file a complaint against them for human rights as they are always calling me a bigot and racist. I even have it in writing from last

Please let me know what you are able to do. “

So it appears that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy again takes this opportunity to cast the Applicant and her husband in a negative light and taint Suzanna Mlakar against them as she had previously done with Alto Properties Inc. owners.

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 appears that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy is very concerned about convincing Suzanna Mlakar that she is not a “ racist and a bigot. ”

Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy also stated “and I am checking out how I can file a complaint against them for human rights as they are always calling me a bigot and racist. I even have it in writing from last year. ”

It appears that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy wants to imply to Suzanna Mlakar that because she wants to file with the Human Rights Tribunal, there is no possible way she could be “ a racist and a bigot ” because if she was, why would she put herself out there with the Human Rights Tribunal?

( Referring to Document # 87 ) Later that evening at 6:19pm Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy sends a ranting email to Alto Properties Inc. owner and Alto Properties Inc. owner where she stated: “ Good Evening Gentlemen, It happened again. I knocked on 303 when I returned and the man there, Charles Darwin it says on application, went ballistic on me again, refused entry, and accusing me of being racist, a bigot, and out to get all the black people in the building. All because I didn’t have a contractor with me to complete the bathroom ceiling repairs after me notifying them in letter that the work needed to be assessed to either be done by staff if minor, or a contractor if extensive. He asked why I wasn’t there at 9:00 am this morning, as I also live in the building, and when I responded I was at other properties all day and just returned, he said I should have been there for 8 am before I left. He said I deliberately made him wait around all day. He said that we are not going in and out of their apartment at different times and that I am to have a contractor there for 9 am to complete the work. I was very calm and walked away and he was throwing these accusations at me at the time. I had staff save the video from the system and I have pics of me at their door as well. Sorry property owner, I can’t take this lying down anymore and I filed a personal complaint with the Human Rights against them for their behaviour. It is already gone as it was the first thing I did when I got home. They need to learn that just because she is black, they can’t throw out these accusations of racism and bigotry against people who don’t give them what they want or do things the way they want. This is their fall back to intimidate me to do things their way and I can’t do it anymore. The fact that they made all these accusations last year and nothing was done about it, they think they can keep it up and get away with it and it needs to stop. It is up to you but as for the job part and doing my duty to the building, I can issue a Form N5 for interring with the landlords interests and privileges for refusing entry and harassing the staff over how the repairs are done. They are treating the apartment as their personal property and acting like they have a say in how its managed. I would love to take them to the tribunal and have an adjudicator see how they talk and the accusation they make against me. I have emailed Suzanna Mlarkar at Property Standards and got a auto reply that she is away till Sept 27 so I will call in the morning to see about getting a inspector to come with me to access the apartment and explain to the tenants how it works for their office in getting repairs done in an apartment. I hope that having someone else there, like property standards, they will see we are following the rules. How they feel I am being racist by not having a contractor with me today I have no idea. Regards, Stella “

It was not until the Applicant and her husband receive this email from Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy herself in September 2017, that they now begin to understand what has behind Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy Obsessive Compulsive Behaviour or OCD to have the Applicant and her family removed from the building.

Again it is this type of Obsessive Compulsive behaviour or OCD in her email again shows an unmoral behaviour by Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy.

Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy stated “ Sorry property owner, I can’t take this lying down anymore and I filed a personal complaint with the Human Rights against them for their behaviour. It is already gone as it was the first thing I did when I got home. They need to learn that just because she is black, they can’t throw out these accusations of racism and bigotry against people who don’t give them what they want or do things the way they want. This is their fall back to intimidate me to do things their way and I can’t do it anymore. The fact that they made all these accusations last year and nothing was done about it, they think they can keep it up and get away with it and it needs to stop. “

Upon reading the above paragraph from Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy email, the Applicant and her husband and now the Human Rights Tribunal can see that;

Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy does not approve of being accused of being a racist and/or a bigot especially by a “ Black ”
Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy believes that because the Applicant is “ Black ” that this is only motivation for the “ accusations,” against her and not because of her own racist and prejudice behaviour towards the “ Black ” Applicant and her
Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy believes that the “ Black ” Applicant is using her skin tone to try and force her into compliance with what she, the “ Black ” Applicant
Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy believes that the “ Black ” Applicant is also using her skin tone to try and “ intimidate” her into compliance with what she, the “ Black ” Applicant
Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy believes that “ the fact that they ( the “ Black ” Applicant ) made all these accusations last year and nothing was done about it, they think they can keep it up and get away with it and it needs to stop. ”
Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy believes that the “ Black “ Applicant is “ treating the apartment as their personal property and acting like they have a say in how its managed. “
Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy is troubled and upset with BOTHAlto Properties Inc. owners because “ they ( the “ Black ” Applicant ) made all these accusations last year and nothing was done about it, “
Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy believes the “ Black ” Applicant “ needs to learn ” a teacher her that there are consequences for making “ accusations,” against
Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy suggested filing a “ Form N5 for interring with the landlords interests and privileges for refusing entry and harassing the staff over how the repairs are done.” And “ would love to take them (the “ Black ” Applicant ) to the tribunal and have an adjudicator see how they talk and the accusation they make against me. ”

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.

Note that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy never makes reference to the Applicants husband and his skin-tone. It appears that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy no issue with a Caucasian man calling her a racist and a bigot, as she only refers to the Applicant and her skin tone during her email where she goes on a racist and bigot rant.

Upon reading where Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy stated “ they ( the “ Black ” Applicant ) made all these accusations last year and nothing was done about it, ” we now understand what the tipping point was when Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy decided that she would now just take matters into her own hands as she obviously felt that Alto Property Inc. owner and his son Alto Properties Inc. owner did not come to her defence at the time back on August 31, 2016 when the Applicant forwarded her 1st letter in regards to her conduct towards the Applicant and her family.

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. ”

Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy makes absolutely no reference to wanting to take the Applicant to the Landlord and Tenant board for anything else other than to try and have an adjudicator rule in her favor that she is not a racist or a bigot.

It also appears that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy wanted to use the this one of the eight tribunals that make up Social Justice Tribunals Ontario as a way to make it “ stop ”, or at least try and silence the Applicant in her attempts to bring awareness to Alto Property Inc. owner and his son Alto Properties Inc. owner of her very racist and bigot behaviour towards her, the “ Black ” Applicant and her family.

The question that the Human Rights Tribunal has to ask is, why was Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy so motivated to try and make it “ stop ”?

Was Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy fearful that because the “ Black ” Applicant keeps bringing up her racist and prejudice behaviour to the owners attention, that she was now fearful of losing her job?

This would be a very logical explanation was to why Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy was so determined and motivational to get rid of the Applicant and her family from the building.

Now let us discuss where Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy stated “ They need to learn that just because she is black, they can’t throw out these accusations of racism and bigotry against people ”

It appears that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy believes that if you are a “ black ”, or maybe even any form of non-white, you are not allowed to make ANY accusations of racism and bigotry against people, especially if they are white.

Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy stated “ learn that just because she is black, they can’t throw out these accusations of racism and bigotry against people – who don’t give them what they want or do things the way they want. ”

So according to Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy reasoning that every time the Applicant enforced her right to refuse entry due to improper notice, or complained about her behaviour to her bosses Alto Properties Inc. owners and finally said that enough was enough in regards to her own racist and prejudice behaviour towards her.

Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy concluded that it was only because the “ Black ” Applicant was “ Black ” and was trying to use her skin tone as a tool “ against people ( whites? ) who don’t give them what they want or do things the way they want. ”

And that the “ Black ” Applicant was also using her skin tone as a “ fall back to intimidate me ( Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy ) to do things their way ”

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. Her racist and prejudice motives towards the “ Black ” Applicant and her family cannot be sluffed off anymore as just a simple misunderstanding or misreading of the situation.

Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy stated she would “ love to take them (“ Black ” Applicant and her husband ) to the tribunal and have an adjudicator see how they talk and the accusation they make against me. ”

By this point the only standard of proof that can be only interrupted is that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy only had one thing on her mind when hoping to file with the Landlord Tenant Board. She was solely motivated by a bias and prejudice against the skin tone of the “ Black ” Applicant.

Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy wanted to use the Landlord Tenant Board to help her teach the “ Black “ Applicant to “ learn “ that she was no longer going to take this “ laying down anymore ”.

That just because the Applicant was “ Black ” Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy was now going to retaliate against her for throwing “ out these allegations of racism and bigotry against ” her in letters addressed to her bosses.

Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy was going to get the one of the eight tribunals that make up Social Justice Tribunals Ontario, the Landlord Tenant Board to do her bidding to make the “ Black” Applicant “ stop ”.

Now there could be some misinterpretation by the Human Right Tribunal as to what Tribunal Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy was referring to.

Was Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy referring to the Human Rights Tribunal when she stated “ I would love to take them to the tribunal and have an adjudicator see how they talk and the accusation they make against me. “ Or was she referring to the Landlord and Tenant Board, which is one of the eight tribunals that make up Social Justice Tribunals Ontario?

At first glance it appears that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy might be referring to the Human Rights Tribunal as it sounds like she wants to clear her name of being a racist and a bigot.

But upon reviewing her statement “ Sorry, I can’t take this lying down anymore and I filed a personal complaint with the Human Rights against them for their behaviour. It is already gone as it was the first thing I did when I got home. “

Cleary this shows that she had already filed a complaint with the Human Rights Tribunal, therefore why would she need to state “ I WOULD love to take them to the tribunal? “

At this point Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy would now state – I LOOK forward to taking them to the tribunal and have an adjudicator see how they talk and the accusation they make against me.

So it is at this point a plan is hatched and Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy is give permission to finally try and have the Applicant and her family removed from the building.

AUGUST 25, 2017

The day after Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy sends her ranting racist and bigot email to Alto Properties Inc. owner and his son Alto Properties Inc. owner.

( Referring to Document # 88, 89, 90, 91 ) – She is given permission to serve the “ Black ” Applicant a N5 for “ interring with the landlords interests and privileges for refusing entry and harassing the staff over how the repairs are done.”

( Referring to Document # 87 ) “ IT IS UP TO YOU, but as for the job part and doing my duty to the building, I CAN issue a Form N5 for interring with the landlords interests and privileges for refusing entry and harassing the staff over how the repairs are done. They are treating the apartment as their personal property and acting like they have a say in how its managed. “

( Referring to Document # 88 ) Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy also supplied a letter that accompanying the N5 that stated “ Please find enclosed the Form N5 we completed for the refusal of entry, and the verbal abuse and aggression shown by the male occupant in the apartment yesterday afternoon Thursday August 24, 2017, when I tried to attend the apartment to assess the damage for the bathroom ceiling repair that you instigated by completing the Maintenance Request / Entry Form that we received Tuesday August 22, 2017. I have also contacted MLS, Property Standards, to arrange for a Property Standards Inspector to attend this apartment with me to assess for repairs needed, due to the continued aggressive and confrontational behaviour, and Notice of Entry will be given to you when this is arranged. Refusal of Entry at any time in future will result in the issue being addressed by Property Standards for an Order to Comply to repairs, Animal Services, if dog is not contained at time of entry, and the Toronto Police for staff safety if needed, and a 2nd Form N5 will be issued to you and filed with the Landlord and Tenant Board for an eviction for interfering with the Landlords rights in completing repairs and assessing their property. We also require a copy of the apartment keys you have, as we have none on file. Please submit a receipt for the key copies, with the key, and the cost of the copy will be reimbursed to you. Refusal of providing a key for required access will result in getting a Notice of Entry for a lock change and you will be provided a key for the new lock. If access to an apartment is required for repairs on a daily basis for any length of time, it is to be granted by the tenant, as per Property Standards and the Residential Tenancies Act. The apartment is the property of the owner, and as a tenant you are obligated to allow repairs to be completed and allow access for any reasonable reason as requested by the owners, whether you agree with these reasons or not. You also do not have the right to be verbally abusive and confrontational to the staff. The verbal abuse, accusations of racism and bigotry, aggressive and confrontational behaviour, by you and your partner, will no longer be tolerated and we will enforce our rights to access the apartment to complete repairs, or any other reason necessary by anyone required, by issuing a Notice of Entry, as per the regulations. I am required to inform you that I have filed a complaint against you and your partner with the Human Rights Act of Ontario for the accusations of racism and bigotry, the verbal abuse given, the aggressive and confrontational behaviour, and the disrespect shown to me in trying to do my job to maintain the apartment. As the Statute of Limitations has not expired from the issues last year, I have included those as well and have submitted the typed written letters, and emails, you sent us with your accusations and verbal abuse written in them towards me and the property owners. “

( Referring to Document # 89, 90, 91 ) – The N5 itself stated:

“ Date/Time Details of the Events

AUGUST 22, 2017 APPROX 9:00AM – REC’D MAINTENANCE REQUEST FOR BATHROOM CEILING REPAIRS. TENANT HAD MARKED AS URGENT AND ASKED FOR 24 HOUR NOTICE OF ENTRY. SENT ENTRY NOTICE FOR AUG 24 FROM 2PM – 5PM. SENT LETTER EXPLAINING ASSESSMENT NEEDED OF WORK TO SEE IF MINOR OR EXTENSIVE. SENT MLS INFO ON TENANT SERVICE REQUEST FOR FUTURE REFERENCE FOR COMPLETING FORMS.

AUGUST 22, 2017 3:15PM – MALE OCCUPANT ANSWERED DOOR, ASKED WHERE CONTRACTOR WAS, SAID WE WERE NOT GOING IN AND OUT OF APT, WANTED CONTRACTOR AT 9 AM TO COMPLETE REPAIRS. HE ASKED WHY I WAS NOT THERE FOR 9AM, I SAID I WAS AT OTHER PROPERTIES, SO HE SAID I SHOULD HAVE BEEN THERE FOR 8AM BEFORE I LEFT. MALE WAS GETTING CONFRONTATIONAL AND AGGRESSIVE. WOULDN’T LET ME SPEAK.

WHILE WAITING FOR ELEVATOR HE CALLED ME A RACIST, BIGOT, AND SAID I WAS OUT TO GET ALL BLACK PEOPLE IN BLDG. I FELT THREATENED BY VERBAL ABUSE AND ITS NOT THE FIRST TIME. HAVE IN WRITING THE NAME CALLING AND MADE UP STORIES ABOUT ME BEING RACIST. TENANTS DO NOT COOPERATE IN GETTING REPAIRS DONE IN APT. ”

Again, it is obvious at this point that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy was given the okay by Alto Property Inc. Owner(s) to give the Applicant another N5.

It is also obvious that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy has now amped up her racist and prejudice motivated attacks on the Applicant and her family.

In reviewing the letter sent to the Applicant by Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy, she now stated that she was going to get the following involved.

MLS, Property Standards Inspector involved,
Animal Services
Police
Human Rights Tribunal

Immediately after reading the letter, the Applicant and her husband we concerned that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy might have tried to enter their unit after they went out for the afternoon the day before on August 24, 2017.

( Referring to Document # 92 ) The Applicant sent Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy and email at 14:25 where she stated “ Dear Stella, I want to review immediately the video from yesterday ( August 24, 2017 ) from 3:15 pm to 5:30 pm that was recorded from the security system in the hall towards my door ”

( Referring to Document # 93 ) Upon not receiving a response from Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy, the Applicant forwarded a second email at 15:18 where she stated “ Dear Stella and Louie, I am informing you that I want to see the video from yesterday ( August 24, 2017 ) between the times 3:15 pm to 5:30 pm. I believe that you tried or did enter my unit while I was out yesterday. If you delete the video, I can only conclude that you are trying to hide your actions from yesterday. ”

( Referring to Document # 94 ) Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy replies with an email at 17:24 where she stated “ Thank you for your email and your continued false accusations. Please note: If we had a key to enter your apartment yesterday we were within our rights to do so as the Notice of Entry you received (copy is in office) states we will enter between 2:00 pm – 5:00 pm, which is allowable under the Residential Tenancies Act and regulations are noted on the form at the bottom of the page. Tenants are not required to be home during entry by staff. But, as we don’t have a key we did not and we appreciate the opportunity to speak to the Toronto Police to prove it. ”

( Referring to Document # 95 ) – The Applicant replies to Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy email at 18:35 and stated “ Dear Louie & Stella, According to your email, you have stated that you do not have a key for my deadbolt/front door. I find it particularly interesting that after me living here for over 2 years, whereas you have been the super for over a year of the time. And suddenly the day after you came to my unit, apparently after drinking and smelling of alcohol, without a contractor to assess the work that need to be done. And refusing to allow you into my home once again for a 5th time to only view an ongoing problem that you are already aware since last year and have made no attempts to fix. You now suddenly serve me again with another spiteful N5, and you just now realized that you do not have a key for my unit? So the question that now needs to be asked is where did the key to my unit go that you had? When I moved in I was told that the deadbolt was a brand new unit and I only got 1 deadbolt key, 1 front door key and 1 mail box key. I would assume that the building would have kept a key for themselves from the new package as they commonly come with 2 keys. Which according to you has now suddenly disappeared/got lost and cannot be located. I would suggest that you go to the office and do another extensive search for my key as maybe it was misplaced while you were renovating the office. I do not feel comfortable with the idea that there is a key to my unit out there and you have no idea where or who has it. It also appears that you have no idea when it went missing while in your care. If you are still unable to locate the key to my unit. I would expect you to replace the deadbolt for my unit with a brand new, still in package unit and I will get extra keys made. Of which I will forward you the receipt and take it of my rent for that month, seeing that I had to make 2 brand new copies previously at my own expenses when I moved in. Being that the building lost the key to my unit. You will be responsible for the replacement of my extra keys. If that does not work for anyone. I will go and buy a brand new deadbolt, get a third key made and I will forward you a key and the receipt of which I will again take it off my rent for that month. Labour is free. ”

It is at this point that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy panics and realizes that she has now created a situation that she cannot explain or talk her way out of.

Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy now becomes desperate and attempts to create fake documents and tries to fast track her desire to have the Applicant removed for the building and have the “ Problem Area “ gone before she has to explain what happened to the Applicants key.

AUGUST 29, 2017

( Referring to Document # 96, 97 ) – Four days after Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy was called out by the Applicant about where the key for her front door suddenly went missing to. Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy serves the Applicant with another letter and a Notice of Entry for September 1, 2017 to change the Applicants front door lock.

Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy stated “ We are writing to you today to respectfully request that you stop with the false accusations of misconduct, the accusations of racism and bigotry, as well as the aggressive and confrontational behavior with the staff. The behavior of yourself and your partner is considered harassment under the Residential Tenancies Act and liable for an eviction using a Form N5, as noted below. As you recently just received the first N5, that gave you 7 days to stop this type of behavior, we now have grounds with these recent emails received from you to issue the 2″ Form N5 with the Landlord and Tenant Board, once the 7 days expire on Friday, as they contain more harassment. This 2″ Form N5 will be required to be filed with the Landlord and Tenant Board for a hearing for an eviction and the filing fee of $190.00 will be added to your rental account for reimbursement. Workplace harassment is also covered under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. 0.1. for employees. We are issuing these Form N5’s due to the refusal of entry and the harassment of the staff, which is our legal right and responsibility. Management don’t need your permission to enter the apartment any time between 8:00 am — 8:00 pm to inspect it, complete repairs, or for. any reasonable reason acceptable under the Residential Tenancies Act. If we have to enter every day, all day, for a month for a valid reason, we can do that. It doesn’t matter if it’s inconvenient for you or if you are not home, even if you don’t agree that the work being done is needed, we can enter as long as notice of entry is given for a valid reason. We do not wish to evict anyone, but we can no longer accept this behavior towards the staff nor the lack of cooperation with the entry of the apartment for valid reasons. If you feel you have legitimate reasons to believe your accusations are true against the staff, please provide the proof and file a complaint with the Toronto Police and we will gladly work with them or you may call the Landlord and Tenant Board to see what they can do to assist you at 416-645-8080. Please note the definitions copied and pasted below for your review on Harassment. We have all letters and emails showing this harassment of the staff on file, as well as the refusal of entry to the apartment. “A tenant engages in harassment by making repeated, derogatory, personal comments directed at the employee and/or to other tenants about the conduct, dress, ethnicity or work ethic of a superintendent; or, engaging in “bullying”, by threatening the landlord’s employee with loss of employment or through verbal abuse directed at the employee. Most landlords and on-site staff have probably encountered the tenant who uses verbal abuse, personal attacks, threats, and harassment. The law takes this kind of harassment seriously.

Landlords have a legal obligation to take steps (including eviction of the tenant) to ensure that such harassment stops. Section 36 of the RTA confirms that harassment of Landlords (which includes employees) by a tenant is conduct which interferes with a landlord’s legal interest. Section 36 RTA states: “A tenant shall not harass, obstruct, coerce, threaten or interfere with a landlord”. A breach of this section of the RTA by a tenant properly gives rise to service of an N5 Notice of Termination on the grounds of “interference with the landlord’s legal interest, Thank you for your time and your cooperation in these matters. ”

First, who is Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy referring to when she stated “ WE are writing to you today to respectfully request that you stop with the false accusations of misconduct, the accusations of racism and bigotry, as well as the aggressive and confrontational behavior with the staff. ”

It appears that Alto Properties Inc. owner and his son Alto Properties Inc. owner have finally openly weighted in on the situation.

It appears that Alto Properties Inc. owner and his son Alto Properties Inc. owner have finally sided with their labor, employee Stella Reddy despite all of the Applicants letters and concerns.

It also appears that Alto Properties Inc. owner and his son Alto Properties Inc. owner were no going to put their foot down in regards to the Applicant calling out their labour, employee Stella Reddy on her behaviour.

( Referring to Document # 98 ) – Upon receiving this accompanying Notice of Entry, the Applicant emails Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy at 19:03 and stated “ Hi Stella, Friday works for me, but I need an exact time in the morning between 9 am and 10 am. If you are unable to do the work on Friday at that above stated time. You can reschedule for next week during that time frame. “

AUGUST 30, 2017

( Referring to Document # 99, 100, 101 ) – The following day at 8:20 Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy replies to the Applicants email where she stated “ Good Morning Ms. Read, Thank you for your email. The times on the Notice of Entry that you received yesterday for Friday September 1, 2017 from 1:00 pm – 4:00 pm is the best time for us to change the lock on the apartment door and no other times will be considered.

We have given you 72 hours notice, which is more than the required 24 hours. If no one will be home during this time, please note the lock will be broken for access to change it and the 4 keys we have cut will be in the office for pickup by you, the leaseholder, when you return, as we prefer to give them in person to eliminate any issues of not receiving them.

Please ensure that your dog is contained for entry, as noted on the form. If your dog is not contained for safe entry for staff to complete the lock change, we will be obligated to issue the 2nd Form N5 Termination Notice for refusal of entry causing inference to the landlords interests, as well as including the recent emails received showing harassment to the staff, and filing them with the Board for a hearing for eviction. Due to the behavior of yourself and your partner we will be ensuring that all regulations are strictly followed and our rights as the landlord will be strictly enforced.

We are changing the lock on the apartment door to eliminate the need for someone to be at there when entry to the apartment of 303 is required, for any reason permitted under the Act. We have tried to work with you the last year but there were constant issues and refusal of entry that was accompanied by confrontational behavior and verbal abuse towards the staff, even when instigated by you by giving a maintenance request/entry form, such as what happened last week. You try to dictate when staff can enter the apartment, as in the email below, and you also try to dictate how the staff completes this work, such as demanding a contractor at a specific time to be at the apartment like last week, and as we cannot always accommodate your request. With us having a key to the unit, there is no need for you to be home to allow entry for required work or inspections. It does not matter if you agree with what we are doing, as long as we follow the regulations of the Residential Tenancies Act, as noted below.

http://www.sjto.gov.on.ca/ltb/faqs/#faq6

Can I refuse to let the landlord in if the landlord wants to enter my unit?

If the landlord has a valid reason (as allowed by the RTA) for entering your unit, you cannot refuse to let the landlord in. If you don’t let the landlord in, the landlord can give you a notice of termination claiming that you are interfering with their lawful rights and you could be evicted. Also, interfering with a landlord’s lawful right is an offence under the RTA.

Can a landlord change the locks?

A landlord can change the locks while the tenant is living in the unit as long as they give the tenant a key for the new lock. Once a tenant has been evicted from the unit, the landlord can change the locks, even if the tenant has left property in the unit. The landlord does not have to give the former tenant replacement keys in this case.

http://www.sjto.gov.on.ca/documents/ltb/Brochures/Guide%20to%20RTA%20(English).html About entering the rental unit

Entry without written notice

A landlord can enter a tenant’s rental unit without written notice if: there is an emergency such as a fire

the tenant agrees to let the landlord in a care home tenant has agreed in writing that the landlord can come in to check on their condition at regular intervals

A landlord can enter a rental unit without written notice, between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. if: the rental agreement requires the landlord to clean the unit – unless the agreement allows different hours for cleaning, the landlord or tenant has given a notice of termination, or they have an agreement to end the tenancy, and the landlord wants to show the unit to a potential new tenant (in this case, although notice is not required, the landlord must try to tell the tenant before entering for this reason). Entry with 24 hours’ written notice A landlord can enter the rental unit between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., and only if they have given the tenant 24 hours’ written notice: to make repairs or do work in the unit to carry out an inspection, where reasonable, in order to determine whether repairs are needed to allow a potential mortgagee or insurer of the complex to view the unit to allow a potential purchaser to view the rental unit (Note: the Act also allows a registered real estate agent or broker to enter for this purpose if they have written authorization from the landlord) to allow an engineer, architect or other similar professional to make an inspection for a proposed conversion under the Condominium Act for any reasonable purpose allowed by the rental agreement. The notice must include the reason why the landlord wants to enter the rental unit and must state what time, between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., the landlord will enter the unit. If the landlord gives the tenant the correct notice, the landlord can enter even if the tenant is not at home. Thank you for your time. If you are unsure of the regulations, or have any questions, please call the Landlord and Tenant Board at 416-645-8080 and they will advise you. “

So with the above email sent to the Applicant, it appears that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy has become even more comfortable in her attempt to amping up desire to evict the “ Black ” Applicant and her family from the building.

So now instead of her threatening to get the following list of people involved,

MLS, Property Standards Inspector involved,
Animal Services
Police
Human Rights Tribunal

She now threatens he Applicant and her family that “ If no one will be home during this time, please note the lock will be broken for access to change it ”

After the Applicant and her husband were done reading this very long winded email, that illegally threatens that the “ lock will be broken for access to change it “ if they are not there.

( Referring to Document # 102 ) – The Applicant sends an email reply at 8:58 that stated “ Hello Stella, I am sad to hear that you are again unwilling work with us. As there will be no one present at the unit after 10:15 am until evening. I cannot grant you access to the unit unattended for Friday to change the locks. Please feel free to file another N5. “

( Referring to Document # 103 ) – Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy replies at 10:25 “ Good Morning Ms. Read, Thank you for your email and your refusal of entry that is contained within showing your offense against the Residential Tenancies Act. As we are obligated to do so, we will proceed with the Landlord and Tenant Board by issuing to you the 2nd and final Form N5 Notice of Termination, and filing it with the Board for an hearing for an eviction, and the filing fee of $190.00 will be added to your rental account for reimbursement, as per their regulations. “

So it appears that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy was excited and very thankful to the Applicant for the refusal. Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy is so excited that she even says “ Thank you, for your refusal ”.

It appears that is in her glory at this particular moment and can’t wait to tell the Applicant that she will be proceeding to file with the Landlord and Tenant Board. Reading the email you can sense the excitement that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy is feeling after as many months of trying to get rid of the “ Black ” Applicant and her family out of the building.

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. This time Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy refuses to even consider working with the Applicant, and in fact has NEVER made any attempts to work with Applicant even though on numerous occasions she falsely claims to have tried. “ We have tried to work with you the last year “

It appears that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy does not understand what the words “ work with you “ means. It appears that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy wants the Human Rights Tribunal to believe that;

Bullying
Intimidations
Threats
Inconveniencing
Harassing
Lying are forms of co-operation.

In Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy’s own email dated August 30, 2017, she clearly stated “ The times on the Notice of Entry that you received yesterday for Friday September 1, 2017 from 1:00 pm – 4:00 pm is the best time for us to change the lock on the apartment door and no other times will be considered. ”

Does this sound like co-operation? Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy cannot produce one example of where she has tried to “ work ” with the Applicant when wanting to enter the unit. Again, this is Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy making-up false claims that are only beneficial to her and her situation and conveniently cast a negative light upon 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. Again we can only believe that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy was again hoping to get into the Applicants unit unattended so she could report back to Alto Properties Inc. owners on what she seen.

SEPTEMBER 1, 2017

( Referring to Document # 104, 105, 106, 107 ) – The City of Toronto Municipal Licensing and Standards officer Nicole Sweetapple visited the Applicant on August 24, 2017. During that visit Nicole Sweetapple noted several violations within the unit and forwarded an Order on this day to Alto Properties Inc. that these violations be immediately corrected.

The Order stated “ The above-described property, which is owned by you or in which you have an interest has been inspected by a Property Standards Officer. The inspection revealed that in some respects the property does not conform with the standards prescribed by the Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 629, Property Standards. It is ordered that, the repairs necessary to correct the defects set out in Schedule ‘A’ be carried out and the property brought to a condition of compliance with the prescribed standards on or before October 2, 2017.

The item(s) listed herein are in violation of the Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 629, Property Standards.

Interior – Bathroom – Ceiling not maintained free of holes, cracks, damaged and deteriorated materials. Namely: bath tub ceiling has peeling paint. Appears to be water

Repairs required 27.A.

Interior – Kitchen – The supplied piece(s) of equipment and/or appliance(s) in or on the property is not kept in a satisfactory working

Namely: The stove oven is not capable of reaching a high enough temperature to safely cook food. Repairs required. 5.B.

Interior – Living Room – Exterior window not maintained weather-tight.

Namely: Living room window is unable to be locked and secured. When trying to close one side, the opposite window opens.

Repairs required 21.A.(1)

Interior – Living Room – Window that is capable of being opened, has a defective locking/latching

Namely: Living room window is unable to be locked and secured. When trying to close one side, the opposite window opens.

Requires repairs. 21.C. ”

SEPTEMBER 5, 2017

( Referring to Document # 109, 110, 111 )- 5 days after receiving the Order from the City of Toronto Municipal Licensing and Standards officer Nicole Sweetapple. Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy retaliated and served the Applicant with a letter and a 4th N5 – Notice to End your Tenancy for Interfering with others, Damage or overcrowding dated September 5, 2017. That is 6 days after the events took place.

Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy N5 stated “ Date/Time Details of the Events AUGUST 25, 2017 4:19 PM TENANT IS ACTING AGAINST LANDLORDS INTEREST IN COMPLETING REPAIRS NEEDED IN APT, TENANT IS HARASSING BUILDING STAFF BY MAKING ACCUSATIONS OF RACISM, BIGOTRY, ILLEGAL ENTRY, ALL FROM WHEN STAFF TRIED TO ACCESS APT. TO ASSESS WORK NEEDED IN BATHROOM CEILING AFTER 24 HR NOTICE IS GIVEN.

AUGUST 25, 2017 7:35 PM. RECEIVED ANOTHER LONG AND HARASSING EMAIL FROM MS. READ ABOUT APARTMENT KEYS AND DOOR LOCK AND FALSE ACCUSATIONS OF STAFF SMELLING LIKE ALCOHOL AND MAKING DEMANDS ABOUT HOW THE KEY SITUATION WILL WORK. COPY IS ATTACHED OF EMAIL. REFUSED ACCESS TO STAFF TO CHANGE LOCKS FOR EASY ACCESS FOR REPAIRS. MS. READ AND HER PARTNER HAVE MADE NUMEROUS HARASSING AND DEROGATORY COMMENTS TO STAFF OF BEING RACIST AND A BIGOT. THEY HAVE BEEN CONFRONTATIONAL AND AGGRESSIVE TOWARDS THE STAFF IN PERSON AND INTERFERES WITH THE RIGHTS OF THE PROPERTY OWNER IN COMPLETING REPAIRS BY DENYING ENTRY. 1ST N5 WAS ISSUED FRIDAY AUGUST 25, 2017. ”

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.

Allowed Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy to create the situation where she could use it as a tool to help assist her in removing “ Black ” Applicant and her family from the building.

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.

It is also going to be proven with Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy own documents that she had intended to present to the tribunal alter and fake documents as factual evidence in an attempt to have the “ Black ” Applicant and her family removed from building.

It has already been shown that there is a pattern of bias behavior that is consistent throughout this application that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy is someone who was trying to harass, obstruct, coerce, threaten and interfere with the reasonable enjoyment of the Applicants and her family.

It will also be proven with Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy own words that she makes discriminating and prejudice charged statement against her own family and community in a public setting at a Landlord and Tenant Hearing without fear of any repercussions.

And it finally it has been shown that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy sees the Applicant as nothing more than just a “ Black ” person and that in every opportunity Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy has gotten, she tried to taint the Applicant and our family as being uncivilized and uncooperative with misleading and even with outright lies.

SEPTEMBER 8, 2017

( Referring to Document # 112 ) – The Applicant sends an email at 13:43 that stated “ Hello, Can you please put in my mailbox all the maintenance request forms that I have handed in before your new staff took over. “

SEPTEMBER 11, 2017

( Referring to Document # 113, 114 ) – Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy supplies the Applicant with copies of all her previous Maintenance Request and copies of all Notice of Entry’s given to her since she moved in back in June 2015.

Upon reviewing the supplied documents the Applicant and her husband noted that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy stated on:

( Referring to Document # 113 ) – Notice of Entry dated for August 29, 2016 – “ Tenant ( was ) did not answer door. Either not home + dog was going mad so tech would not enter, Aug. 30/16 – No Keys. ”

It appears by looking at this altered document that the untruthful words “ No Keys ” is an afterthought and written as a side note after the original not was made.

It also appears to have been written in a different pen, maybe different color as it appears to be a slightly thicker stroke than the pen that was originally used to write the other note.

( Referring to Document # 22, 23, 24 ) – The Human Rights Tribunal also has to begin to wonder why it is in Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy August 30, 2016 email stated “ Also, I was at your door this morning with Pest Control but there was no answer and the technician refused to enter as your dog was growling and barking, so your apartment was not treated. ”

( Referring to Document # 22, 23, 24, 114

Let us quickly compare 2 statements/notes made by Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy, from different sources, the same incident against each other.

It is very interesting that the same Notice of Entry that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy used to make her hand written notes on, and referred to when creating her emails, texts and letter to the Applicant over the next 2 days has no mention of having “ No Keys ”.

With so many opportunities for Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy to bring up this issue, she makes absolutely no reference or mentions having “ No Keys ” for the Applicants unit.

( Referring to Document # 19 ) – Stella Reddy to Applicant Email – August 29, 2016/15:01

( Referring to Document # 20 ) – Stella Reddy to Applicant Text – August 29, 2016/15:29

( Referring to Document # 22, 23, 24 ) – Stella Reddy to Applicant 2 page letter – August 30, 2016

( Referring to Document # 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 ) – Stella Reddy to Applicant 5 page email – August 31, 2016/14:45

( Referring to Document # 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 ) – The Applicant would like to quickly draw the attention of the Human Rights Tribunal to the August 31, 2016 email.

In the email Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella stated,

“ we scheduled Terminix Pest Control to treat your apartment ”
“ entry was not gained due to dog at the door barking and growling ”
“ there was no answer ”
“ We will require safe access for this treatment to be completed ”

“ As per 24 Hour Notice given August 22, 2016 we scheduled Terminix Pest Control to treat your apartment for cockroaches ( August 29, 2016 ) as part of a block, but entry was not gained due to dog at the door barking and growling and there was no answer. A signed form was returned by you that you would be prepared and Notice of Entry asked that all pets be secured, but was not. As a result treatment was not completed and this interferes with your neighbor’s interests, as well as the Landlords, to control these cockroaches in these apartments. We will require safe access for this treatment to be completed. ”

What is amazing is that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy even address the issue of needing to get into the Applicants unit, “ We will require safe access for this treatment to be completed ”

How did Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy expect to get “ safe access ” into the Applicants unit if she had “ No Keys ”? It appears that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy is more worried about getting “ safe access ” than getting in because according to her own hand written notes, she has “ No keys ”!

It makes absolutely no sense why Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy is worrying about access, it only makes sense if you intended and are able to get in.

So obviously with that said, Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy had to have the key for the Applicants unit for this statement to make logical sense.

( Referring to Document # 113 ) – Another interesting fact that cannot be disputed and is very hard to believe. Is that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy, using her hand written notes as a reference, does not mention or make a reference to having “ No Keys ” in the 1st illegal N5 she gave to the Applicant 3 days later.

( Referring to Document # 38, 39, 40 ) – Stella Reddy 3 page N5 to Applicant – August 31, 2016

It appears that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy thinks it is far more important to talk everything else, but the “ No Keys ” issue in all of these documents.

One would think that as the superintend of the building, Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy would have express her concerns for the missing key and access, first and foremost in all of her communications with the Applicant. Instead she makes absolutely no mention of it. Why?

Could it be that the hand written statement “ No Keys ” on Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy’s Notice of Entry to the Applicant did not exist at the time of her writing her email to the Applicant the following day?
Could it be that the hand written statement “ No Keys ” was a suspicious and continent afterthought by Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy in an attempt to try and create some form of legal documentation that she thought would help prove her innocents after being accused of throwing away the Applicants keys on August 25, 2017?
Could it be that the hand written statement “ No Keys ” was totally missed by Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy while she was writing her email to the Applicant the following day?
Could it be that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy considered the statement of “ No Keys ” as being only important enough to note of her copy of the Notice of Entry, but it was irrelevant and unnecessary to address it when corresponding with the Applicant over the following 3 days?

( Referring to Document # 114 ) – Now the Human Rights Tribunal needs to focus on Notice of Entry dated for September 2, 2016 – “ No one home, Did not contain dog. We have no key “

Unlike the August 29, 2916 hand written notes from the Notice of Entry, It certainly appears that everything in the note was written at the same time.

No one home
Did not contain dog
We have no key

It also appears that it was all written with the same pen, and everything seems to flow constantly. No side notes or after thoughts.

There is only one HUGE problem for Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy with this Notice of Entry date September 2, 2016!

There can be no doubt, argument or debate as to when this was not written, and therefore it can be concluded when it was.

You see the Human Rights Tribunal needs to remember that on September 2, 2016 a pest control technician and Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy did attend the Applicants
The pest control technician did enter the unit and sprayed while Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy waited in the
And as a quick reminder, the pest control technician left and complemented the Applicant husband on the great job he had done to try and control the roach
Let us also remember that is when Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy suddenly became a roach powder expert and tried to bait the Applicants husband into so heated debate about the use of too much

So you see, Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy hand written statement “ No one home, Did not contain dog. We have no key ” is no obviously a lie and a conspiracy to create false documentation in an attempt to have the Applicant and family removed from the building.

Now there is a chance that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy might be so foolish as to say that this appointment never happened. Well there are a few ways to verify the existence of this appointment.

The Human Rights Tribunal can look at Alto Properties Inc. tax returns for expenses for the
The Human Rights Tribunal could ask to see their company check book/log.
The Human Rights Tribunal could ask to see their banks statements, looking for any checks cashed around that time. Than request that Alto Properties Inc. request a copy of the checks from the

Or the Human Rights Tribunal can consider the following.

If it was that the appointment never happened. That would have meant that the Applicant would have had to cancel it. Now let us all consider that idea for a minute.

Does the Human Rights Tribunal believe that the Applicant could have cancelled this 2nd appointment for pest control to come in and spray in a 4 day period, and Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy never issued her another N5?

Does the Human Rights Tribunal believe that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy would have allowed this opportunity to pass and not giving the Applicant another N5 for missing a scheduled pest control appoint within a 4 day period?

Let us remember that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy gave the Applicant a N5, 4 days earlier, despite knowing that the Applicant was well with in her rights not to allow her entry as the Applicant was NEVER GIVE THE REQUIRED 24 HOURS PROPER NOTICE as mandated by the Ontario Residential Tenancies Act.

Let us all remember that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy had to of known that she did not meet the required 24 notice, and yet she still gave the Applicant the N5 without fear of any repercussions.

With this information above, does anyone still realistically really believe that the scheduled pest control appointment never happened and suddenly Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy had a change of heart and did not serve them a legitimate N5?

As a side note, it is important to review one more situation from the 2 Notice of Entry’s.

( Referring to Document # 113, 114 ) The Applicant and her husband and were confused by what Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy meant when she stated

“ No keys ”
“We have no key ”
Why does Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy on August 30, 2016, after being 2 1/2 hours late, state the word “ keys ”. And 4 days later state “ key ”?

At the time and to this present date, the Applicant has had only 1 lock on her unit door. The one that came with the unit. The Applicant has not added and second lock and yet Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy thinks there were two, despite standing in front of the door only minutes earlier with the pest control technician before making her hand written notes? Maybe Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy did not go to the right door and went to a different unit to spray?

But four days later Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy suddenly notes that the Applicant inly has 1 lock on her unit door. This is the same day that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy hand written notes state that the appointment never happened.

So why the difference is accounts for the amount of locks on the Applicants unit door?

It can only be assumed that when the Applicant called out Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy about throwing away her key from the office lockbox. Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy panicked and decided that she needed some form of documentation to support her when she states there was never a key to be thrown away.

So Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy grabbed known date where she knew the appointment had not taken placed, August 30, 2016. And made the quick little side note “ No Keys ”.

At the time Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy did not consider or pounder what she was writing. She basically reacted to being called out by the Applicant without thinking.

Sometime after that, Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy decided that it might look better is she had a 2nd document that collaborated the 1st . Hence the September 2, 2016 Notice of Entry with the hand written note “ No one home, Did not contain dog. We have no key. ”

No it appears that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy did not catch her first mistake when she stated the words “ keys ” and then used the word “ key ” during her attempts to create her fabricated and deceptive documents.

Again it appears that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy reacted to being called out by the Applicant without thinking. And in her moment of distress, Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy never realized that she actually did attend the Applicants unit on September 2, 2016 with a pest control technician and the work was done.

Now this evidence only proves the Applicants claims that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy created these two fabricated and deceptive hand written notes about missing key(s) on or after August 25, 2017, that she intended to present to the Landlord Tenant Board on September 26, 2017 if question about her conduct in harassing the Applicant in wanting to change the Applicants lock.

So again it appears that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy had deliberately made false statements on a legal document that she used or intended to use to have the Applicant and her family removed from the building.

Why else would Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy have created this legal document if she never intended to submit it to the Government agency, like the Landlord and Tenant Board?

According to the Canadian government it is A SERIOUS CRIME to lie, or to submit deliberately false information or documents to any government agency in the country.

SEPTEMBER 20, 2017

( Referring to Document # 79 ) – The Applicants husband ends up speaking with hsband, who is the male occupant of unit # outside in the parking lot. During their conversation the Applicants husband brought up the letter from Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy dated July 13, 2017.

The male occupant from unit # stated that he is “ good friends ” with the unit in question ( # ) whose window and balcony the Applicants air conditioner was dripping on.

The male from unit # stated that he “ was talking with them just the other day, and there was no mention,” nor had there “ been any mention of that problem ” from them.

The Applicants husband asked the male from unit # if the next time he was speaking to them, “ could you ask them to call me? ” The male occupant stated “ okay, that should not be a problem. ”

SEPTEMBER 2017 TO OCTOBER 2017

The Applicants husband and the husband from unit # speak on numerous occasions on the phone in regards to Tenant Association and other topics.

SEPTEMBER 26, 2017

Alto Properties Inc. owner, Alto Properties Inc. owner, Alto Properties Inc. employee at in attendance at the Landlord Tenant Board in regards to a hearing for the N5 given to the Applicant by Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy.

During this hearing Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy stated “ Yes I do ” when being asked by an SJTO adjudicator Kevin Lundy “ Stella Reddy, do you promise to tell the truth throughout this proceeding? ”

During the hearing Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy was stated “ I don’t even talk like that – I’m sorry, ” in regards to calling the Applicant and her husband’s bi-racial children the prejudice and derogatory slur “ Mulatto ”.

Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy went on and stated “ I called her children “mullato.” I had to ask my niece what that word meant, because I didn’t know what it meant. I don’t talk like that. ”

Then Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy stated “ I’m Newfie. Anybody asks me, I’m a Newfie. I have nothing to do, I don’t say I’m Canadian or I work in Canada. ”

Now Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy stated in a public hearing and in front of SJTO adjudicator Kevin Lundy that that she cannot be a racist because she is a ” NEWFIE ” herself.

She repeats this statement on several occasions during the entire hearing as to imply that it has some relevance and proof to her argument of not being a racist.

Apparently Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy does not understand, or does not care that the term “ Newfie ” is defined as a prejudice slur that is used in Newfie Jokes that depicts Newfoundlanders as stupid and foolish.

It appears that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy wants the SJTO adjudicator Kevin Lundy to believe that a Caucasian, late 50’s female, born and raised in Canada did not know what the word “ Mullato ” meant.

For Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy to even try and convince anyone of this, only shows here desperation to try and free herself of her actions. I guess that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy will say that she does not know what the words Nigger or Spook means next, and that she will have to go once again to her niece to get some cultural awareness lessons on inappropriate vocabulary.

It is so ridicules for Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy to make such a far reaching statement, and to believe that she believed she could convince the SJTO adjudicator Kevin Lundy or anyone in the gallery listening to it.

And still Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy acts as if she is so naive as to know what the word “ Mullato ” means, and yet she claims she cannot be a racist despite using prejudice slurs like the word ” NEWFIE ” in a public forum.

Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy went on and stated “ I don’t speak that way. I’m from Newfoundland. I have very beautiful great nephews and nieces who are half black, and my nephew is as black as you can get. He’s even darker than she is, ( while pointing at the “ Black ” Applicant ) I have no issue with any kind of race. I just recently moved another gentleman into the building… ”

Now the Human Rights Tribunal is beginning to understand how Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy really sees people whose skin tone is not the same as hers.

For example, Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy stated that her “ nephew is a black as you can get, He’s even darker than she is, ( while pointing at the “ Black ” Applicant ) ”

So let us put Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy statement in a visual perspective.

( Referring to Document # 115 ) – The picture on the left is approximately the same complexion as the applicant.

Now according to Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy her “ nephew is as black as you can get, He’s even darker than she is.”

Now clearly the picture on the right depicts an accurate account of what Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy stated that her “ nephew is as black as you can get ” and the picture of the right is certainly darker than picture on the left.

You see there are a few problems with Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy use of these racist slurs and used prejudice charged statements and language.

Does Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy really see her own family/nephew as being this dark? She must, as she could have just said that her nephew was a darker shade of brown or black then she is, while NOT pointing at the “ Black ” Applicant.

She clearly stated her “ nephew is as black as you can get”. There is absolutely no debate on this issue! So the picture on the right is defiantly the color of black, and it’s as “ black as you can get ” on a printer.

Now, let us remember that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy did not say – brown as you can get, she said “ black as you can get ”. It appears that the picture on the right does fit perfectly with the racist and prejudice charged statement made by Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy

Now maybe Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy meant when she stated he was as “ black as you can get ” was her nephew’s character and mannerisms?

Maybe she meant to say that the “ Black ” Applicant only acts partially “ Black ” and that her nephew acts more “ Black ” than her? Maybe her nephew even acts borderline Ghetto?

Whatever the excuse it is that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy finds to justify her use of these racist slurs and used prejudice charged language, there is no denying that the statement alone was inappropriate, let alone pointing at the Applicant at the same time while saying these ridicules words, centering her out and referring to her skin tone.

If Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy set out to trying and embarrass the applicant in a public forum, she definitely succeeded.

Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy could have pointed to a few of other individuals in the gallery that where for their own personal business, who were the same or who were a little lighter skin toned than the

Applicant. But nope, Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy chose to us the Applicant as a comparison and her example when describing her Nephews skin tone.

The Applicant and her husband can assure the Human Rights Tribunal that they have seen Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy nephew who was visiting his aunt, Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy sister who also lives in the building in unit # 405.

The Applicant and her husband can assure the Human Rights Tribunal that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy nephew is approximately the same age as their son who is 9, and by no means is Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy nephew skin tone anywhere near the “ black as you can get ” complexion that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy made reference to.

The fact that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy used these racist slurs and used prejudice charged language in a public forum with a gallery full of people of every nationality, race and sex is astounding. Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy made these remarks without fear or repercussions or consequences. Does Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy think that the rest of the world thinks and see non-whites the same way she does?

Let us not begin to forget that not only did Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy makes these racist slurs and used prejudice charged language in a multicultural public setting, she used these racist slurs and used prejudice charged language in front of a SJTO adjudicator Kevin Lundy, who did not bother to correct her behavior.

Yes, Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy denies every calling the Applicants and her husband’s children “ Maulatto ” and yet, in a multicultural public forum she use such these racist slurs and used prejudice charged language like “ Newfie ” and refers to her own blood as being as “ black as you can get ” and refers to the Applicants skin tone while pointing and centering her out as an example.

( Referring to Document # 116, 117, 118, 119 ) – Even in the Order written on October 3, 2017 by SJTO adjudicator Kevin Lundy, he stated in paragraph 6 And Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy wants the Human Rights Tribunal to believe that she uses this type of language in emails to her bosses, in a multicultural public setting, in front of a SJTO adjudicator Kevin Lundy, but not on the street, in front of restaurant or even in the comfort of her own home?

But what is more disturbing then the racist slurs and use of prejudice charged language is that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy used in front of SJTO adjudicator Kevin Lundy on September 25, 2017.

That Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy handed in “ Black ”email dated August 24, 2017 at 18:19pm to Alto Properties Inc. owner and Alto Properties Inc. owner where she ranted and stated “ Sorry, I can’t take this lying down anymore and I filed a personal complaint with the Human Rights against them for their behavior. It is already gone as it was the first thing I did when I got home. They need to learn that just because she is black, they can’t throw out these accusations of racism and bigotry against people who don’t give them what they want or do things the way they want. This is their fall back to intimidate me to do things their way and I can’t do it anymore. The fact that they made all these accusations last year and nothing was done about it, they think they can keep it up and get away with it and it needs to stop. “, “ I would love to take them to the tribunal and have an adjudicator see how they talk and the accusation they make against me. “

It again appears that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy thinks that it is normal to rant and use racist ideology about someone’s skin tone in an email to their bosses and then feel comfortable enough to hand it in at a SJTO hearing and to a SJTO adjudicator, who is hearing that they ( The Respondent ) themselves have filed an application against you for being a racist and bigot.

So why did Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy do this?

Was it that she was so comfortable with the SJTO system that she knew that no matter what was said about her by the Applicant, that the SJTO adjudicator Kevin Lundy would find no fault in her actions?
Does Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy know something about the SJTO being geared to favor Landlords?
Was it that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy really thinks that her ranting and racist ideology is acceptable evidence of her not being a racist?

Maybe it was a combination of both or everything?

Whatever Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy reasoning for handing in the incriminating email. It again shows that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy says what she feels and feels what she says. We may not know exactly what is in her heart, but we do know exactly what she said.

Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy goes on to state in the hearing other misleading things that the Applicant just does not have time to address do to time restraint, but will be more than willing to address at trial.

SOMETIME BETWEEN SEPTEMBER 27, 2017

AND OCTOBER 3, 2017

( Referring to Document # 120) – The Applicant receives a Notice of Enter from Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy for Annual Fire Inspection and Annual Unit Inspection on September 2, 2016 between the hours of 9:00am to 5:00pm.

OCTOBER 4, 2017

( Referring to Document # 121 ) – The Applicants husband receives an email at 7:05 from the City of Toronto Municipal Licensing and Standards officer Nicole Sweetapple. She stated “ The e-mail I received from property management indicated that they applied to the landlord and tenant board with an N5 for refusal of entry for the owners interest in maintaining the apartment. The hearing was scheduled for September 26th. I have not heard the outcome from the hearing. An e-mail I received October 2nd, indicated that they have Mircom Giardia coming Wed Oct 4 for the annual fire inspection and they will have staff bringing an oven element for the stove to be changed that day while they have access. As for the rest of the repairs, letters of entry will be provided to get the repairs done. I am being kept informed through the process, and the file is updated accordingly. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me, by e-mail or telephone at . ”

At 9:53am, Alto Properties Inc. owner knocked on the Applicants unit door. The Applicants husband answered the door and invited Alto Properties Inc. owner and his fire inspector/contractor into the unit.

The fire inspector walked over, tested the smoke detector and then left. It took approximately 25 seconds. There was absolutely no interaction by Alto Properties Inc. owner or the fire inspector/contractor with the Applicants husband.

With this interaction between the Applicants husband and Alto Properties Inc. owner and the fire inspector/contractor, there were absolutely no issues as the Applicants husband was fully cooperative and polite.

As Alto Properties Inc. owner and the fire inspector/contractor left the unit, the Applicants husband notice Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy standing in the hallway, in front of the elevator with a clipboard. The Applicants husband figured that they were now going to do the Annual Unit Inspection, but instead everyone walked away towards unit #304.

The Applicants husband than closed the door and continued to wait unit 17:00 for the Annual Unit Inspection to take place.

( Referring to Document # 122 ) – At 17:10, the Applicants husband sent an email to Alto Properties Inc. owner and Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy after waiting for 7 hours for someone to return to do the Annual Unit Inspection stating “ It is now 5:10 pm and you have not returned to do the yearly inspection. You were here this morning to test the fire alarm with your contractor and made absolutely no mention that you would not be returning. I do not appreciate you having me sit here all day waiting for you AGAIN, and you could not be bothered to inform Allison or me that you were not going to return. According to your entry form you were supposed to do fire alarms and yearly inspections today between 9 am and 5 pm. You only completed the fire alarms. ”

OCTOBER 10, 2017

( Referring to Document # 123 ) – 6 days later, Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy finally responds at 11:49 to the email that was sent back on October 4, 2017 by the Applicants husband.

Alto Employee Inc. Stella Reddy stated “ Good Afternoon Mr. Read, Thank you for your email. Due to the hearing that was held on September 26, 2017, and we were waiting for the Hearing Order to come, it was prudent for staff not to attend the apartment to complete the annual inspection. Thank you for your time and if you have any questions please feel free to contact me. “

So it appears that again it was not “ prudent ” at 9:53 for Alto Properties Inc. owner or Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy to inform the Applicants husband that they would not be returning to the Applicants unit to do the Annual Unit Inspection later that day.

So not only this time was Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy who had the Applicants husband again sitting around 7 hours for an appointment that they deliberately cancelled and deliberately did not notified him about. It was also now Alto Properties Inc. owner who was in on it.

It appears that now it was the two of them that enjoyed the idea of not notifying the Applicant or her husband of the cancelation and causing them the inconvenience of again sitting around and waiting around for 7 hours for and appointment that they only knew was not going to happen.

When Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy stated “ it was prudent for staff not to attend the apartment to complete the annual inspection “ there can be no doubt that they did not notify the Applicants husband of the cancelation.

The Applicants husband stated “ You were here this morning to test the fire alarm with your contractor and made absolutely no mention that you would not be returning. ”

Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy does not refute or deny the Applicants husbands claim of not being told about no one returning later that day. Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy admits that they decided approximately around September 26, 2017 that “ it was prudent for staff not to attend the apartment to complete the annual inspection “, “ Due to the hearing that was held on September 26, 2017 ”

That means that Alto Properties Inc. owner or Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy decided 8 days before the actual Annual Unit Inspection that “ it was prudent for staff not to attend the Applicants apartment to complete the annual inspection ” as they were waiting to see what the Order from SJTO adjudicator Kevin Lundy was going to say. It also appears that they decided 8 days earlier that they were not going to tell the Applicant or her husband that they were not going to do the Annual Unit Inspection, despite putting on the Notice of Entry they were coming to do it.

So now let us go back and review the email sent from the City of Toronto Municipal Licensing and Standards officer Nicole Sweetapple to the Applicants husband on October 4, 2017. Nicole Sweetapple stated “ An e-mail I received October 2nd, indicated that they have Mircom Giardia coming Wed Oct 4 for the annual fire inspection and they will have staff bringing an oven element for the stove to be changed that day while they have access. ”

Since Alto Properties Inc. owner or Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy decided 8 days before the actual Annual Unit Inspection that “ it was prudent for staff not to attend the Applicants apartment to complete the annual inspection. ”

It is clear that Alto Properties Inc. owner or Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy had no intention of fixing the Applicants stove, despite telling the City of Toronto Municipal Licensing and Standards officer Nicole Sweetapple they we that same day.

So it appears that the City of Toronto Municipal Licensing and Standards officer Nicole Sweetapple order requires that “ the rest of the repairs, letters of entry will be provided to get the repairs done. I am being kept informed through the process, and the file is updated accordingly. ”

Since the October 2, 2017 email from Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy to the City of Toronto Municipal Licensing and Standards officer Nicole Sweetapple, where she knowingly lied about fixing the Applicants stove on October 4, 2017 during the Annual Unit Inspection. It has been 8 months and Alto Properties Inc. owner, Alto Properties Inc. owner and Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy had made absolutely NO ATTEMPTS TO FIX OR CORRECT anything described within Nicole Sweetapple’s Order.

NOVEMBER 8, 2017

( Audio Recording Available )( Referring to Document # 124, 125, 126 ) – The Applicants husband phoned the male occupant from unit # at 15:04 and asked if he could drop by so they could talk about unit # signing a letter about the air conditioner.

( Audio Recording Available )( Referring to Document # 124, 125, 126 ) – At 17:41 the male occupant from unit # calls the Applicants husband and ask him to meet him in the stairwell of the building.

At that time the male occupant from unit # 406 stated that Alto Properties Inc. owner approached him and began question him as to why he was talk with the Applicant and her husband? The male occupant also went on to say that Alto Properties Inc. owner made a threats to him about giving problems to Alto Properties Inc. owner Stella Reddy, and that he needs to stop or he will have to “ Remove ” him and his family from the building.

At the time the male occupant reassured the Applicant husband that he was not intimidated by the comments made by Alto Properties Inc. owner, and that he will definitely now get in contact with unit # for him.

( Audio Recording Available )( Referring to Document # 127 ) – Fast forward to June 3, 2018, the Applicants husband phone the male occupant from unit # to discuss what was previously talked about in the stairwell back on November 8, 2017. The male occupant again clarifies that Alto Property Inc. owner did threaten him and his family with eviction if they did not quit giving Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy about her behavior.

NOVEMBER 15, 2017

( Referring to Document # 128 ) – After a week of not hearing from the male occupant from unit # . The Applicants husband sent him a text at 14:15 where he stated “ Hello… it’s Kory. Did you get to speak to unit about the letter? “

( Audio Recording Available )( Referring to Document # 124, 125, 126 ) – At 18:31 that same night, the male occupant from unit # called the Applicants husband and explained that he was with “ suit ” and he would like to speak with the Applicants husband.

After the gentleman from unit # got on the phone. They started discussion how it was that no one from their home complained or discussed with Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy the Applicants air conditioner dripping on their window ledge.

The gentleman from unit # explained they themselves have an air conditioner, so why would they have their windows open, let alone complain about water slashing into their unit.

( 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 is clear when listening to the phone call between the Applicants husband and the gentleman from unit # , that this family never spoke to Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy in regards to the dripping air conditioner.

So why did Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy fabricate this lie?

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.

NOVEMBER 16, 2017

( Referring to Document # 128 ) – The following day at 10:05 the Applicants husband sent the male occupant from unit # a text where he stated “ Good morning… It Kory again… Sometime this weekend can you please get the people to sign that letter and quickly write a letter stating they never had any conversation with Stella as it states in the letter and have them date, sign and phone number. I want to file my soliciting Monday but I can’t do it until I have the letter in hand. So if you could do that for me that would be awesome. Thanks family… ”

( Referring to Document # 128 ) – Again at 10:26 the Applicants husband sends another text where he stated “ File my application on Monday . No sure why auto correct put in the word soliciting. Sorry to bother you for the little confusion. ”

NOVEMBER 21, 2017

( Referring to Document # 128 ) – The Applicant receives a txt from the male occupant from unit # at 18:17 where he stated “ His name is ”

( Referring to Document # 128 ) – The Applicants husband replies at 19:53 “ Okay I will thanks ” ( Referring to Document # 129 ) – On this day at 20:11 the Applicants husband sends a text to the gentleman from unit # where he stated “ Hi … it is Kory from apartment 303 above you. Are you free to talk? ”

NOVEMBER 22, 2017

( Referring to Document # 129 ) – On this day, again at 8:23 the Applicants husband sends another text where he stated “ Good morning, I hate to bother you but I need to know when I can get that letter from you in regards to Stella making false claims using your family. I can quickly type up a little note that will say – I ( your name ) have never had any conversation with Stella Reddy or Alto Properties in regards to the unit above me and the air conditioner, and all you have to do is sign and date it. If you give me a time I can type and print it up and bring it by you to sign. I am only asking because I want to file on these guys but I cannot included that letter if you’re not willing to state you have no knowledge of the conversation. All she will do is say that she did have the conversation. Please let me know. Thanks Kory ”

NOVEMBER 25, 2017

( Referring to Document # 128 ) – On this day at 9:07 the Applicants husband sends a text to the male occupant from unit # where he stated “ Hey its Kory. Can you try and find out today what is going on with ? I have to file this week so I would like to know their position. I have to file with or without them. Thanks family. ”

NOVEMBER 28, 2017

( Referring to Document # 130 ) – On this day at 9:44 the Applicants husband sends a WhatsApp text to the male occupant from unit # where he stated “ Hi it’s Kory. Sorry for using WhatsApp. I have to buy time for my phone later when I go out. Can you ask the people down below me if they still are willing to ask Stella about the letter? They can send her an email and just give me a copy or they can call her to the office and ask her there with me and you being present. That way I can show that they did question her about it that is all I need. I can go to court and say … Here I have an email they sent her stating they don’t appreciate what she did in using them as an excuse or I can say that I was present at the meeting when they questioned her about the letter. I know they are intimated by her, but they really have a good case to help us get rid of her. If they want we can record the phone call, let me known thanks. ”

DECEMBER 6, 2017

( Referring to Document # 130 ) – On this day at 15:48 the Applicants husband sends a WhatsApp text to the male occupant from unit # where he stated “ Hi again. I have no time in my phone so I have to use WhatsApp. Can you tell me what the situation is with #? Do they intend to help me out or are they scared? Please let me know. Thanks. Kory ”

DECEMBER 14, 2017

( Referring to Document # 131 ) – On this day at 14:08 the Applicants husband sends a WhatsApp text to the gentleman from unit # where he stated “ Hi, it’s Kory from unit 303. When we last spoke on Nov. 15 about Stella sending me a letter in regards to our air conditioner dripping on your window ledge. You had mentioned that you had never spoke with her in regards to this issue and that you were pissed off that she was calling your family’s name in something you had no idea about. You mentioned at the time you wanted to confront her about it and I asked you to hold off. I asked if you could sign the copy of the letter she gave me, that I gave you and to just write on it this conversation never happened. I have not heard back from you, and I am just following up to find out why? We do have a few options.

1 – You can sign the photo copied letter and put the little note stating you did not have this conversation with
2 – You can call her and record the conversation via on your phone and then email it to me or I can be present and record while you talk on speaker
3 – Call her to have a meeting in the office with me present and you can ask her about it I front of
4 -come to court and tell the judicator that you had no idea about this letter and conversation with her.

I can video you stating that this conversation about my air conditioner never happened and I can play it for ghetto judicator. I totally understand you might be scared and worry for your family. But if you let this slide you are playing right into what she wants. Stella and Alton Properties do what they do because everyone is scared. If you do nothing they are going to know you got a copy of the letter and did nothing. If you think Stella is bad now with her N5 ‘ s. Do nothing and then watch her. Right now she being quite because of all the court stuff I am doing to her and Alto Properties. But when that is all said and done she will return to her old bully ways. Your letter or conversation with Stella will go a long way in getting her out of here. Plus I have to think that if she is found to be guilty of lying about you and your family. There has to be some legal compensation you can go after in the Landlord Tenant Board or civil court . There is no way she can call your name in something without your permission. Especially when it is a lie. Anyways please let me know where you stand about this issue and how you would like to proceed in dealing with Stella. If you do not reply I will assume that you are not willing to stand up against them and I will not bother you anymore. Thanks Kory ”

DECEMBER 20, 2017

( Referring to Document # 130 ) – On this day at 10:12/10:18 the Applicants husband sends a WhatsApp text to the male occupant from unit # where he stated “ Hi… It’s Kory, I am going to file with the human rights again Stella and Alton Properties. I want to discuss in my paper work the conversation we had were the owner hinted that you should not deal with me and my family and that you could be putting your family at risk of being evicted. I know that was not what he said word for word but that he did hint at it if you keep talking with me. I am going to tell the human rights board they can call you but do not let Stella or Alton Properties know what you talked about or even that they called you because of concerns for retaliation. It would be so much easier if you and just wrote me a quick letter, but it appears has had a sudden change of heart in regards to talking to Stella about the letter. Please let me know. We can’t have Stella and the owner trying to intimate and threaten people and getting away with it. The problem will only get worse. Strength comes in numbers. Thanks Kory ”

( Referring to Document # 131 ) – On this same day at 10:18/10:19 the Applicants husband sends a WhatsApp text to the gentleman from unit # where he stated “ I am going to be filing a human rights complaint against Alton Properties and Stella Reddy in regards to this whole situation and their prejudice behavior. I am going to suggest that they call you to speak to you in regards to the letter about the air conditioner dripping into your unit and that you told me in a phone conversation that you did not file or speak to Stella or any Alton Properties Inc. employee about such a thing. I will also tell them that they need to keep that conversation between you and them and in fact they are to jot even notify or acknowledge if they do talk to you due to your concerns for retaliation from Stella and/or Stella for speaking about them. Are you okay with this idea? “

It has to be clear to anyone reading all these text from the Applicants husband to unit # and # , he was trying to get a letter from the gentleman in unit # confirming what was said in their phone call on November 15, 2017, of not them not speaking to Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy about the dripping Air Conditioner.

But it appears that suddenly the gentleman from unit # had a change of heart, and it appeared that he no longer wanted to get involved, let alone give the Applicant the letter he stated he would.

So what happened?

It appears that after talking to the male occupant from unit # in the stair well on November 8, 2017 and reassuring him that the threats made towards him and his family would not intimidate him. But in fact they must have!

As you can see the Applicants husband has sent multiple texts and it appears that NO ONE is bothering to reply back. It appears that the male occupant from unit # must have told the same story about Alto Properties Inc. owner threating him with eviction, to the gentleman from unit # .

This understandably made the gentleman from unit # and therefore made the gentleman decided that he could not get involved as he did not want to take the chance of getting kicked out of the building and having to restart his and his family’s life somewhere else.

It now becomes very clear as to why Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy favors Alto Properties Inc. owner over the father, Alto Properties Inc. owner.

Alto Properties Inc. owner is a bully just like Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy and they both have the same mentality. Cross our paths and we will have you removed from the building in retaliation for disrespecting out authority.

JANUARY 8, 2018

( Referring to Document # 132, 133, 134 ) – So it appears that the Applicant and her husband have found what could be the more evidence for why Alto Properties Inc. owner, Alto Properties Inc. owner and Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy are so motivated to have the Applicant and her family removed from the building.

It appears that the cost of living on the same floor as the Applicant, and right next door has increased substantially from approximately $1,087.07 to $1,400. That is an increase of 23% in the cost of living here in the building overnight and after the new elevator was completed.

So it appears that Alto Properties Inc. owner, and his son Alto Properties Inc. owner motivation to have the Applicant and her family removed from the building so they can suddenly increase the rent by 23% for any new tenants that would occupy the unit.

It also appears that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy has another motivation to have the Applicant removed from the building, outside of her racist and prejudice views about her and her family. Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy wants to help make money for Alto Properties Inc. owner, and his son Alto Properties Inc. owner.

It appears that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy believes that if she keeps lining the owner’s pockets with new forms of income from around the building. That Alto Properties Inc. owner and his son Alto Properties Inc. owner will overlook her racist rants, prejudice behavior and deliberate attempts to inconvenience and stress out the Applicant and her family.

It appears that there might just be something to the Applicants claims that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy believes the money she brings in, the safer he job is with Alto Properties Inc. owner, and his son Alto Properties Inc. owner.

( Referring to Document # 135 ) – On April 30, 2018 Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy posted a letter in the building information board regarding “ New Applications for Parking ”.

Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy stated “ Please note that effective as of May 1, 2018 any tenant wishing to rent a parking spot on the property, the rental cost for a parking spot has risen to $75.00 outside and $100.00 for inside. This affects all new parking request for current and new tenants as of May 1, 2018. As noted on all applications, parking rentals are an additional fee per month that is added on your rent and last month’s rent is required as well as a completed parking form with all required information of your vehicle. Parking regulations are noted on the forum. For those of you on the waiting list for a parking spot, please request the parking form. If not already done so, and complete and submit to the office at your earliest convenience, with the last months rent for the parking space. We have some spots coming available for the 1^st of June outside that we can allot for the waiting list parking. The available spots will be given on a first come first served basis and all requirements must be met. ”

It again appears that there is a 25% increase for outside parking and a 50% increase in cost for indoor parking.

There has been no obvious new expense for Alto Properties Inc. owner, and his son Alto Properties Inc. owner in regards to maintain the parking area. But there has definitely been an increase in outgoing cash flow for their brand new elevator and security system.

So again is this why Alto Properties Inc. owner, and his son Alto Properties Inc. owner have over looked everything that has transpired between the Applicant and Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy since June 2016?

Again is this why Alto Properties Inc. owner, and his son Alto Properties Inc. owner are so willing to overlook everything Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy said?

It appears that the saying – Money talks, and bullshit walks has new meaning. It appears that as long as Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy finds new ways to fill the owner’s pockets with cash, she is secure in her job.

While on the topic of parking, the Human Rights Tribunal now needs to hear about the Applicant and her new car.

MARCH 14, 2018

( Referring to Document # 136 ) – The Applicant sends Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy text at 10:44 in regards to needing a parking spot for the families new car. It stated “ Hello Stella, my husband and I bought a car and we are picking it up on Saturday morning so we would like a parking spot please. What info do you need? Thanks Allison. ”

( Referring to Document # 137 ) –, Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy places a letter in the Applicants mailbox. It stated “ Dear Ms. Read, We hope this letter finds you and your family well. We are writing to you in response to the text message received today with the request for a parking spot on the property.

First, thank you your request but please note text message is not an acceptable track able way of communication between tenants and building staff, as per the RentSafeTO Bylaw, as texts are not easily printable for tenant files and for review by City Officials upon their request. Please submit all requests in writing by either our Tenant Request Form or by email in the future. At this time we do not have any parking spaces available on the property and if you wish to be added to the waiting list for a parking spot please submit the vehicle information with your name and apartment number and we will advise you when we have something available for you to rent. Due to the limited parking spaces available in Visitors Parking area we can’t allow tenant to temporarily park there as we do not have enough spaces for all whom are waiting. I am sorry but you will have to find a parking space off site as some others have had to do. ”

( Referring to Document # 138 ) – The Applicate and her husband forward an email at 11:56 to Alto Properties Inc. owner, and his son Alto Properties Inc. owner and Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy. The email stated “ Dear, ? and ? and Stella Reddy, We were informed this afternoon by Stella Reddy that there are apparently no park spots available for us in the building parking lot. I am not sure what Stella Reddy means by finding alternative parking when no parking is allowed on Kennedy Road or the surrounding side streets overnight. I am not sure what all of you expect tenants to do in regards to parking when you have allowed for numerous tenants to have multiple spots. Like other tenant(s) in the building, I guess I will also have to park in the visitors parking area, as I am STILL a resident in the building and until a space becomes available. Please issue me a parking pass like the other tenant(s), so there will be no confusion as to my car being a visitor verses resident. If our car is ticketed or towed, I will be deducting it from the rent. Again it appears to us that Stella Reddy has allowed for her personal beliefs and feelings towards Allison and our family to play a role in this poor decision making. She once again is trying to inconveniencing us by stating there is no parking available even though she has obviously continue to accommodate other tenant(s) recently and in the past for multiple and single parking spots. But somehow now she suddenly cannot accommodate us when we request a parking spot.

There are numerous tenants within the building that do not even have cars, so that means that there has to be numerous tenants that have 2 parking spaces. There are 36 parking spots, multiple tenants that do not have cars and only 35 units in the building. There is mathematically no way the parking area should be full if everyone has only 1 spot. Unfortunately your need to make free money for parking off the tenants does not supersede my needs to park my car in the building where I live.

Someone with 2 parking spots should be the ones to find alternative parking for one of their cars/motorcycles as I was told for my one car. If not and you force me to find alternative parking and I have to pay for it. I will be deducting it from the rent. ”

MARCH 15, 2018

( Referring to Document # 139, 140, 141 ) – The Applicate and her husband forwards 3 emails at 18:04 and 18:15 to Alto Properties Inc. owner, and his son Alto Properties Inc. owner and Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy. The email stated “ Hello Stella, , as I have been unable to locate any alternative parking off site as requested by you. I would like to request a visitors parking pass until I am able to find some where to accommodate my car. Thanks Allison and Kory ”

MARCH 16, 2018

( Referring to Document # 142 ) – The Applicate and her husband forward an email at 11:56 to Alto Properties Inc. owner, and his son Alto Properties Inc. owner and Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy. The email stated “ We are forwarding this email to provide you with my car information for a Temporary/Visitor Parking Pass.

Year: 2018
Make: Nissan
Model: Qashqai
Colour: Nitro Green
Plate: CDVK 807

Please put in our mailbox as you have previously done on all the other occasions when we would rent a car.”

MARCH 17, 2018

( Referring to Document # 143 ) – The Applicate and her husband forward an email at 11:56 to Alto Properties Inc. owner, and his son Alto Properties Inc. owner and Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy. The email stated “Dear owners and Stella Reddy, Sorry, the dealership gave us the wrong plate number yesterday via text. They sent us a picture of the right plates just now.

Picture of car and plate attached to this email.

Year: 2018
Make: Nissan
Model: Qashqai
Colour: Nitro Green
Plate: CEST 333

Please put Temporary/Visitor Parking Pass in mail box as previously done in the past when we rented a car. If you have any questions or concerns, please text or email. ”

It is at this point that the Human Rights Tribunal gets a full understand of what transpires next.

Alto Properties Inc. owner, and his son Alto Properties Inc. owner and Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy do not bother to respond to the Applicants request for a visitor parking pass until a parking space comes available.

At the time there we 2 empty slots that were not being used and were empty. Parking slots 9 and 12. There were multiple units that owned multi parking spaces, for example;

Unit # had parking spaces
Unit # had parking spaces
Unit # had parking spaces
Unit # had parking spaces

And Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy, herself had 2 parking spaces, .

What was so amazing about this whole situation was that unit # on had one car and yet Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy would not force them to give up the empty space for the Applicant.

Another interesting fact is that when learning about Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy second parking space . Upon looking at the car, it was clear that the car has never moved when it was placed in there over a year earlier. The tires where flat, it was cover in a thick coat of dust. It was confirmed when the Applicant spoke with his neighbor, who parked next to car. He had mentioned that he had been parking there for a long time and he had never seen the car move. In fact he had no idea even who the car belonged to. Even after asking the owner Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy whose car it was.

So apparently Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy wanted to keep the fact that she had a 2nd parked indoors from everyone in the building.

Then there is the fact that parking spaces 9, 12 were open and never used. The Applicants husband would photo graph these spaces on a daily basis at all hours of the day and night to show that these spaces where never being used, and yet Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy refused to allow the Applicant to use them.

What the Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy did allow the Applicant to use to park in was the visitors parking area. That meant on 5 occasions when the Applicant and/or her husband came home. They found the 6 visitor parking slots full. That meant that they had to go speak with the Children’s Aid Society down the street to ask if they could park there until a parking space became available in visitor parking.

Is this why that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy refused to give the Applicant a parking space? Did she hope that the Applicant would arrive home and not be able to find a place to park? Did she hope that the Applicant would have to park on the street overnight, resulting in getting a ticket as Scarborough does not allow for overnight street parking? Maybe Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy was hoping the applicant would park in one of the empty spaces and then she would have the vehicle towed?

What every the reason, it is clear that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy could have very well offered the Applicant an empty parking space and she did not.

Again it appears that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy whole agenda behind not giving the Applicant a parking space was that she enjoyed the idea of inconveniencing the Applicant and causing her stress to find alternative parking.

Now it needs to be discussed the parking situation at the time of this application. Since the Applicant asked for a parking space back in March 14, 2018 there have been

current and new tenants who obtain a 1st vehicle after the Applicant requested a parking space are given a parking
current and new tenants who obtained a 2nd vehicle since the Applicant requested a parking space, are given a Visitor Parking passes until a regular parking space becomes

And yet Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy refuses to give the Applicant a Visitor Parking Pass and stated “ I am sorry but you will have to find a parking space off site ”

It is clear that by this point that Alto Properties Inc. owner, and his son Alto Properties Inc. owner and Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy are willing to accommodate everyone else but the Applicant when it comes to issuing Visitor Parking Passes and parking spaces.

At the time of filing this application there are at least 4 known parking spaces available that Alto Properties Inc. owner, and his son Alto Properties Inc. owner and Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy could offer the Applicant.

June 1, 2018

( Referring to Document # 144 ) – The Applicant pays $942.19 rent via a e-transfer. The Applicant deducts $146.88 for the purchase of a counter top toaster oven on March 3, 2018. Applicant at the time does not included receipt.

June 2, 2018

( Referring to Document # 145, 146 ) – Alto Properties Inc. Employee Stella Reddy sends the Applicant and email at 8:50 where she stated “ Good Morning Allison, This morning at 12:23AM, Alto was sent a partial e-transfer for your rent. The amount sent was $942.19, your monthly rent is $1087.07, resulting in a shortfall of $144.88 Please advise if this was made in error. If so we will forgo accepting until you have the full amount. Or, if you cannot pay your full rent due to unforeseen reasons please let us know when we can expect the $144.88 balance. May we also take this time to remind you that your current rent balance including this months $144.88 is a combined total of $1231.95. This is a result of your cancelling of October 2017 rent. See attached cancellation notice. ”

June 3, 2018

( Referring to Document # 147, 148 ) – Applicant sends an email to Alto Properties Inc. owner, Alto Properties Inc. owner and Alto Properties Inc. Employee Stella Reddy. The Applicant attaches a copy of the Receipt for the counter top toaster oven.

What is absolutely amazing about what has transpired over these 3 days is how bad-minded and determined Alto Properties Inc. owner, Alto Properties Inc. owner and Alto Properties Inc. Employee Stella Reddy are to have the Applicant and her family removed from the building.

The Human Rights Tribunal needs to understand about why the October rent was cancelled by the Applicant of October 5, 2017.

( Referring to Document # 116, 117, 118, 119 ) – Noting the Order by SJTO adjudicator Kevin Lundy dated October 3, 2017. SJTO adjudicator Kevin Lundy makes and Order that the Applicant is required to move out by October 31, 2017.

This is the same day that she has a hearing in front of the Landlord and Tenant Board about Alto Properties Inc. owner, Alto Properties Inc. owner and Alto Properties Inc. Employee Stella Reddy. SJTO adjudicator Kevin Lundy created the Order 8 months ago, and it would have taken effect 7 months ago.

At the time the applicant had e-transferred her rent on October 31, 2017, but due to the order issued by SJTO adjudicator Kevin Lundy for eviction. Alto Properties Inc. refused to take in and the Applicant cancelled the e-transfer as she was exploring her options on what she should and could do.

After consulting with a lawyer, it was explained that she should appeal. It was at this time the Appeal process was started and everything went on hold and frozen.

Since October 31, 2017 when the eviction should have taken place, but due to the Appeal it was stayed.

Alto Properties Inc. owner, Alto Properties Inc. owner and Alto Properties Inc. Employee Stella Reddy have made absolutely no attempts to discuss or collect the last month’s deposit that was used in October 2017.

( Referring to Document # 104, 105, 106, 107 ) – Let us all also note since September 1, 2017 ( 9 months ), Alto Properties Inc. owner, Alto Properties Inc. owner and Alto Properties Inc. Employee Stella Reddy have made absolutely no attempts to fix or correct any of the several violations within the unit, that were in the Order by The City of Toronto Municipal Licensing and Standards officer Nicole Sweetapple.

It is amazing that Alto Properties Inc. owner Alto Properties Inc. owner and Alto Properties Inc. Employee Stella Reddy on June 2, 2018 noticed that the Applicants rent was short by $146.88 and must have instantly thought and cheered thinking that she and her husband were suddenly hurting financially and could not pay the rent in full.

What they did not realize is that the Applicant had not yet forwarded them the receipt for the counter top toaster oven therefore they did not get a copy when sending out the email to the Applicant.

Alto Properties Inc. owner, Alto Properties Inc. owner and Alto Properties Inc. Employee Stella Reddy now decided they should capitalize on what they think is the Applicant and her husband finically challenging times, and they will seize the opportunity to try and build a new case to have the Applicant and her family removed from the building.

Alto Properties Inc. owner, Alto Properties Inc. owner and Alto Properties Inc. Employee Stella Reddy figured that this would be a great opportunity to kick the Applicant and her husband while they were down and now, after 8 months request the last month’s deposit that was used in October 2017.

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.

The actions of these 3 on them on June 2, 2018 remove any doubts. The question the Human Rights Tribunal has to ask is;

Why is it that suddenly Alto Properties Inc. owner, Alto Properties Inc. owner and Alto Properties Inc. Employee Stella Reddy are so now interested in the Applicants last month’s deposit that was used in October 2017?
Why hasn’t Alto Properties Inc. owner, Alto Properties Inc. owner and Alto Properties Inc. Employee Stella Reddy not try to make any attempts for the past 8 months to collect it?
Why is it that Alto Properties Inc. owner, Alto Properties Inc. owner and Alto Properties Inc. Employee Stella Reddy have made absolutely no attempts for the past 9 months to repair anything in the Applicants unit, despite getting an Order from the city to do so?
With so much evidence against Alto Properties Inc. owner, Alto Properties Inc. owner and Alto Properties Inc. Employee Stella Reddy of their racist, prejudice and inappropriate behavior. Why have they all continued to try antagonizing and inconveniencing the Applicant and her family?
With so much overwhelming evidence, why does Alto Properties Inc. owner, Alto Properties Inc. owner and Alto Properties Inc. Employee Stella Reddy continue to fight this in the courts?

The fact that Alto Properties Inc. owner, Alto Properties Inc. owner allowed Alto Properties Inc. Employee Stella Reddy to file the original N5 to have the Applicant and her family removed from the building. Knowing all this evidence is against them and their staff and they still continuing to participate in the Appeal process, clearly shows that this is far more than just a landlord and tenant issue.

This is evidence that this has become something very personal for Alto Properties Inc. owner, Alto Properties Inc. owner and Alto Properties Inc. Employee Stella Reddy.

The Applicant and her family pay their rent on time, in full and take great care of the unit. They do not disturb other tenants and they get along with anyone in the building.

So it is clear that these above facts are not any grounds to want an Applicant and her family out of the building.

But what does make sense, is that Alto Properties Inc. owner, Alto Properties Inc. owner have been following blindly and condoning the words and actions of Alto Properties Inc. Employee Stella Reddy for personal reason that are truly only know to them.

Whatever the reason are that Alto Properties Inc. owner, Alto Properties Inc. owner continue to endorse Alto Properties Inc. Employee Stella Reddy and her employment and behavior.

Their recent action is just another great example of everyone working in collusion to have the Applicant and her family removed from the building.

And for all of their bad-minded intentions and actions over the past 2 years, creating such a negative and hostile environment for the Applicant and her family. They cannot be rewarded and need to be corrected.

Their behaviour is not social acceptable nor at any time have they acted in good faith or tried to cooperate with the Applicant and her family. All they have done is try to have the Applicant and her family removed from the building in retaliation for her enforcing her rights and for calling them out on their behaviour and actions.

Applicants

Like this:

Related

Related News

Like this:

Related

Related News

Working Out My Thoughts!

One of My Mistakes