For years, pieces of my life have existed online in fragments.

There are emails, tribunal documents, court decisions, old websites, screenshots, blog posts, accusations, responses to accusations, and responses to those responses. There are things I wrote when I was angry, frightened, exhausted, or simply trying to defend myself. There are things written about me that went far beyond anything that happened inside an apartment building.

When all of it is scattered across the internet, it can be difficult for anyone coming across my name to understand what actually happened.

That is why I am putting this together.

I am not asking anyone to accept my version simply because it is mine. I am not going to pretend I handled every moment perfectly, either. I didn’t.

Instead, I want to do something much simpler.

Look at the documents.

Look at what was alleged.

Look at what the Landlord and Tenant Board actually decided.

Look at what the Divisional Court actually said.

Look at what the websites subsequently published.

Look at my own words too.

Then make up your own mind.

Where This Story Began

This story began while I was working in a residential apartment building in Toronto, Ontario.

What started as ordinary property-management issues gradually turned into an increasingly hostile relationship with tenants in the building. There were disagreements about repairs, access to the rental unit, parking, barbecues, notices, building policies and eventually accusations that my actions were motivated by racism.

By 2017, the relationship had deteriorated badly.

There were angry communications on both sides. I felt that everything I did was being interpreted in the worst possible way. The tenants believed I was deliberately targeting their interracial family.

Those are two very different perceptions of the same conflict.

Eventually, the landlord brought an application to the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The tenancy was terminated.

That is where the public record becomes especially important, because we do not have to guess about what the Board decided.

What the Landlord and Tenant Board Actually Found

• Landlord and Tenant Board Eviction Document released October 3, 2017: TEL-83876-17 (Re), 2017 CanLII 84930 (ON LTB) https://canlii.ca/t/hpbxw

The eviction was not granted because a Black woman “stood her ground.”

It was not an eviction order finding that the tenants were undesirable because they were an interracial family.

The Landlord and Tenant Board found that the tenants had substantially interfered with the landlord’s lawful rights by unreasonably refusing access to the apartment after proper notice had been given.

Two particular incidents became important.

On August 24, 2017, access had been arranged so the bathroom ceiling could be inspected. Access was refused.

Another refusal occurred on September 1.

The Board ultimately found that the refusals were unreasonable and terminated the tenancy.

That does not mean every complaint the tenants made was invented.

It does not mean every interaction I had with them was perfect.

It means that when the legal issue was finally decided, the reason for termination was interference with the landlord’s lawful rights arising from unreasonable refusals of access.

That distinction has become almost invisible in some of what was later written about me online.

Racism Was Raised at the Hearing

I also do not want to rewrite the record in my favour.

Race was an issue, they said.

The tenants alleged that I treated their family differently because of race. There was also an allegation involving something supposedly said at a restaurant in 2016, which I denied. I was never at that restaurant, not before, not after.

At the hearing, I commented on having Black relatives, including a nephew whom I described in terms of how dark his complexion was.

Looking back, I understand why that wording was considered racially insensitive.

The adjudicator apparently considered it insensitive as well.

I could have expressed myself much better.

At the time, I was trying to say that I did not judge people according to skin colour and that Black people were part of my own family. I was frustrated and defensive, and the way I expressed that was clumsy.

I can acknowledge that without accepting everything that was subsequently said about me.

Those are not contradictory positions.

What Happened When the Case Was Appealed

• Divisional Court Document Released April 15, 2019: https://canlii.ca/t/hzs47

The matter did not end at the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The eviction decision was appealed to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Divisional Court.

In 2019, the Divisional Court dismissed the appeal.

Among the arguments raised were allegations that the hearing had been unfair and that the adjudicator had been biased.

The Court rejected those arguments.

The Court found that the tenant had received an entirely fair hearing and that there was no basis for concluding that the adjudicator was biased.

The Court also addressed the allegation that my actions had been motivated by racism.

One sentence from that decision matters enormously to me:

There was no direct evidence that the application for eviction was motivated by racism.

The Court also found that it had been open to the Board member to conclude that the superintendent’s actions were not motivated by racism.

At the same time, the Court did not pretend that every word spoken at the hearing was ideal. It acknowledged the racially insensitive nature of the comment that had been made.

That is the actual complexity of the record.

It is possible for someone’s language to be insensitive without that establishing that an eviction was racially motivated.

Some of the websites created afterward erased that distinction completely.

What the Court Did Not Find

This part is just as important as what it did find.

The Court did not find that I deliberately evicted an interracial family because they were interracial.

It did not find that the eviction was retaliation against a Black woman for challenging me.

It did not find that I was a white supremacist.

It did not find that I had conspired with the property owners to remove non-white tenants.

It did not find that the Landlord and Tenant Board adjudicator was protecting me because of race.

It did not find that the Divisional Court judges were part of a racist conspiracy.

Those ideas appeared repeatedly later online on the 7 websites they made.

They were allegations and interpretations.

They were not findings of the Court.

That difference matters.

Then the Websites Appeared

The conflict did not end with the tenancy.

That is really the beginning of the second half of this story.

Websites began appearing about the building, the legal proceedings and eventually about me personally, starting in November 2017 after they filed the appeal to the Divisional Court.

One of them was stellareddy.com, which showed up just after they lost the Appeal on the eviction.

Over time, the subject matter expanded far beyond the original apartment dispute.

The site described me as racist, a liar, a stalker, a narcissist, unstable, crazy, a Trump supporter, a white supremacist and many other things.

Individual events from years earlier were repeatedly brought back as evidence of these larger character judgments.

A disagreement about a barbecue became evidence of racism.

A parking dispute became evidence of white privilege.

A disagreement about access became evidence of racial persecution.

An ambiguous one-word Twitter reply became evidence that I defended Donald Trump and possibly shared his racial views.

My statements about having Black relatives became evidence that I used Black people as “props.”

If I denied being racist, the denial itself could be described as part of a racist “routine.”

If I became angry about being accused of racism, the anger could be used as further evidence.

If I said I was doing my job, that too could be given the name of another “routine.”

Eventually, almost every response I made could be fitted into the same conclusion.

That is one of the most important things I see now when I look at everything together.

A Real Fact Could Become Something Much Bigger

I am not going to claim that everything published about me began with something fabricated.

Sometimes the starting point was real.

The problem was often what happened after that.

Take one small example.

I once posted the single word “asshole” in a Twitter discussion involving a meme about Donald Trump.

The website argued that I was calling the person who posted the meme an asshole rather than calling Trump one.

Maybe someone could reasonably interpret it that way.

But that interpretation then became the claim that I had defended Donald Trump.

Later it became evidence that I supported his racial views.

Then the site asked whether I wanted Indigenous people or perhaps all non-white people out of Canada.

That entire conclusion grew out of one ambiguous word.

I saw the same pattern repeatedly as I reviewed the old material:

something happened.

Then came an interpretation of what happened.

Then an explanation of what I supposedly intended.

Then that intention became evidence of the kind of person I supposedly was.

Later articles would cite the character conclusion as though the original evidence had already proven it.

An Interesting Disclaimer Appeared Later

One version of the site eventually contained a disclaimer that said something I actually agree with.

It said:

“Since we are unable to see in the minds of those involved, we are unable to declare that our opinions are fact.”

Exactly.

None of us can see into somebody else’s mind.

That is why I find some of the other statements so striking.

The same website told readers what I supposedly hated, envied, wanted, believed and secretly intended.

• It claimed I was jealous of a Black woman’s financial success.
• It claimed I desperately wanted to know where the former tenants lived.
• It claimed I spent every day for two years searching for them.
• It claimed I went to sleep thinking about them and woke up thinking about them.
• It claimed I moved to Newfoundland to run away from what I had done.
• It claimed I was going crazy because I had been exposed.

Those are not simple descriptions of observable behaviour.

They are claims about what existed inside my mind.

And the site’s own disclaimer acknowledged that nobody publishing those articles could actually know that.

The Story Expanded Far Beyond the Apartment Building

This is the part that affected me most.

Eventually, the websites were no longer primarily about what happened at 859 Kennedy Road.

They became about me.

• My husband was brought into it.
• My family was brought into it.
• My adult children were discussed.
• Personal family information was republished.
• My medical history was discussed.
• My PTSD was mocked.
• My disability benefits were discussed.
• My finances were speculated about.
• My employment was discussed.
• My friendships and the political opinions of people I had communicated with were examined.
• My social-media activity was monitored and interpreted.
• My websites became subjects of new articles.
• My move back to Newfoundland became part of the story.

Eventually my possible residential address in St. John’s was published, along with information about where the entrance to the unit was possibly located, making us decide to move into a secure apartment building. Why would I take any chances after that?

By then, what connection did my front door in Newfoundland have with an access dispute at an apartment building in Toronto years earlier?

That is a question I think readers can answer for themselves.

Newfoundland Did Not End It

At one point the old site essentially said that moving to Newfoundland would not matter because Newfoundland still had internet access and people could continue searching my name.

Later, the website actually branded itself around:

“Exposing a Newfoundland Racist.”

My location had become part of my online label.

Then my exact residence was published.

It is difficult for me to describe what it feels like to see your home address placed on a website devoted to describing you as a racist, liar, stalker and mentally unstable person.

That moved the situation into a very different place for me.

Employers Were Not Merely a Possibility

For a long time, I wondered how far the people publishing this material wanted it to travel.

Eventually I did not have to wonder.

They wrote it themselves.

One article said that anyone searching my name—including:

“friends, family, or future or current employers and co-workers”

would see the information and:

“deal with her accordingly.”

Another article told readers that my supposed dishonesty should be considered:

“when hiring her for employment, or even consider being her friend.”

Another promised:

“many, many more years”

of the continuing project.

And another said the purpose was to expose my alleged racist behaviour:

“to as many individuals as we can.”

Those are their words.

I do not need to speculate about whether they understood that these websites could affect my reputation, friendships or employment.

They explicitly discussed those audiences.

My Own Websites Became Targets Too

Over time I began writing online myself.

Part of that was defensive.

Part of it was my attempt to preserve documents and explain what had happened from my perspective.

I will readily admit that some of my early writing came from anger and emotional pain.

The response became another chapter of the conflict.

Several pages on StellaReddy.com celebrated having my websites removed.

At one point the site stated:

“Yes, that is right, we had it removed.”

Another article described learning the wording and terms needed to get websites taken down.

Later, the site claimed that ten different websites or accounts connected to me had been removed or suspended.

What stayed with me most was not even the number.

It was this sentence:

“It seriously brings us joy”

The article described enjoying the process of allowing me to create a site and then seeing it disappear.

Another said I could continue creating sites and that eventually:

“one day you will wake up, and they will be gone and your account will be suspended AGAIN!!!”

Platform actions have their own rules and processes, and I am not claiming that every suspension was necessarily caused by the same person.

What matters here is what the publishers themselves said about their participation.

“A Game of Cat and Mouse”

One later article accused me of stalking the family and claimed I had finally learned where they lived.

The article began by admitting:

“Our guess is…”

when explaining how I supposedly obtained the information.

But within the same article, the guess became a claim that I had spent two years, every day, searching rental sites, Facebook, Quora and contacting people trying to locate them.

Then came another revealing statement:

“we enjoy this game of cat and mouse”

The article went further, saying they enjoyed “owning” my hubby and me and having us supposedly devote our days, weeks, months, years and lives to them.

That language mattered to me.

For years, I was described as the person who could not let go.

Yet here the continuing interaction itself was being described by the other side as a game they enjoyed.

Then the Website Was Taken Offline as a “Test”

In March 2022, stellareddy.com announced its return after being offline for approximately four months.

The explanation was extraordinary:

“the site was offline as a test to Stella Reddy.”

According to the page, I had “failed” the test.

Think about what that means.

The website was supposedly taken offline deliberately to see what I would do while it was gone.

My behaviour during that period was then evaluated.

The site returned with new content about it.

Another page announced:

“Time to revamp the site and expose her for who she is.”

followed by:

“BACK ONLINE SOON.”

At that stage, this was plainly no longer just a historical archive of a 2017 landlord-tenant dispute.

The website had become an ongoing interaction in its own right.

Old Material Was Reposted and New Material Was Added

Another relaunch page made that explicit.

It said:

“Welcome, it is a thrill to be back…. Can’t wait to start posting again!”

and:

“There is a lot of content that needs to be reposted online.”

But it also said:

“There is an ton of new content that must be included…”

The project was continuing to generate new material years after the tenancy had ended.

The same page said it would be unfortunate if my hubby and I were unable to see the “completed work.”

That told me something else.

We were not merely the subject. We were also intended readers.

The Forty-Seven Email Addresses

One of the later pages made a serious allegation that deserves to be treated seriously.

It claimed that I had used 47 different email addresses to contact the family over the years, including fake identities, supposedly to get around being blocked.

Some example messages were published.

A number were anonymous or pseudonymous and spoke about me in the third person.

One claimed to be a completely different former tenant.

The site attributed all of them to me.

I am not going to resolve that allegation here merely by saying, “They are lying.”

If someone wants to establish that I controlled 47 accounts, that is a factual question.

Each account can be examined.

There should be evidence connecting each address to me.

Dates can be checked.

Messages can be compared.

Account records or technical evidence can be considered where available.

What I do reject is the next leap.

The site used the 47-account allegation to declare that I had a “deeply unstable personality,” had “narcissistic tendencies,” was experiencing “madness” and needed serious medical attention.

Even if repeated contact were established, those are still amateur psychological diagnoses.

Behaviour can be described without diagnosing someone’s personality from across the internet.

The Things I Would Do Differently

This page would be dishonest if I presented myself as somebody who responded flawlessly to all of this.

I did not. I became extremely angry.

There are emails and posts I wrote that I would never word the same way today.

There were times when I reacted rather than thought.

There were statements about punishment and accountability that sound much harsher to me now than they did when I was overwhelmed by what was happening.

If communications or posts involving minors are accurately attributed to me, I understand why that is something people could criticize.

I also understand why some of my racial language at the original hearing caused offence. I cannot go backwards and replace the words I used.

What I can do is acknowledge them.

That still does not mean I must accept every motive subsequently assigned to those words. A bad response does not prove every accusation made before it.

Anger does not establish racism.

Insensitive wording does not automatically establish discriminatory intent.

Being hurt does not automatically make every later reaction wise.

Life is considerably more complicated than that.

I Also Stopped Trying to Diagnose Everyone Else

For a long time, I used words such as narcissist, toxic, gaslighting and similar psychological terminology when writing about what happened.

Those concepts helped me understand certain patterns I believed I was experiencing.

But I have come to believe that the actual behaviour tells the story better than a label does.

I do not need to diagnose anybody.

• I can show what was published.
• I can show what the tribunal found.
• I can show what the Court found.
• I can show what I wrote.
• I can show what they wrote.
• I can show where I believe allegations became assumptions and assumptions became “facts.”

And readers can decide what they think.

That is enough for me now.

This Was a Reciprocal Conflict

Timeline of Interactions With Toxic Bullies: 2016-2022

Another thing I can acknowledge today is that this eventually became a cycle.

They published about me.

I responded.

My response became new material for them.

I wrote more.

They wrote about what I wrote.

I tried to have sites removed. Sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn’t.

They wrote about that and apparently attempted to have mine removed.

Then those removals became more content.

Every reaction generated another reaction.

That does not mean everything both sides did was equivalent.

It means the conflict became self-perpetuating.

Understanding that has been one of the most important parts of moving beyond it.

So What Does the Whole Record Actually Show?

When I look at everything together now, I see a real landlord-tenant dispute that became something much larger.

There were genuine disagreements.

There were genuine documents.

There were allegations of racism that deserved to be heard.

There was language from me that I understand was offensive.

There were things I did later that I would handle differently today.

But the public record also shows that the tenancy was terminated after findings concerning unreasonable refusal of lawful access.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Divisional Court found the hearing fair.

The Court rejected the allegations of adjudicator bias.

And the Court said there was no direct evidence that the eviction application was motivated by racism.

Afterward, the online campaign expanded far beyond those issues.

It followed my work, family, husband, health, finances, friends, politics, websites and eventually my physical location in Newfoundland.

The publishers expressly discussed future employers and co-workers finding the material.

They spoke of continuing for “many, many more years.” They wanted to reach “as many individuals as we can.”

They celebrated the removal of my websites. They said it brought them “joy.”

They described the continuing interaction as an enjoyable “game of cat and mouse.”

They deliberately took their website offline as a “test” of what I would do. Then they brought it back.

Eventually, years after the original dispute, they published my residential address.

Those are not conclusions I have created about their motives.

Those are things contained in the material itself.

Where I Am Now

The part that matters most to me today is something those old websites cannot show. My life continued.

For years I felt as though I had to defend every accusation, answer every insult and prove every interpretation wrong.

That is exhausting because there is no finish line.

If someone has already decided what is inside your mind, almost anything you say can be fitted into their belief.

Eventually I understood that I did not need to win that game. I could simply stop playing it, so I did.

This website is still where I preserve parts of what happened because it is part of my life and because I believe I have every right to tell my own story and share what I have learned.

But my life is much bigger now than what happened in one apartment building almost a decade ago.

I live in Newfoundland now.

I write about music, memories, ordinary life, healing, things that interest me and whatever happens to be running through my mind.

I have a husband I love, a home, interests, projects and a life that exists completely independently of people I once knew through my job. I am retired now, and enjoying it.

I cannot control what strangers believe after typing my name into a search engine. I can control what I put here.

So I am leaving this record for anyone genuinely interested in understanding what happened. The sites may be gone that they created since last year, but if you look you can find it somewhere, as I did.

• Read the Court decision.
• Read the tribunal material.
• Read what was written about me.
• Read what I wrote too.

Notice where the documents end and somebody’s interpretation begins.

Notice the things I acknowledge as well as the things I dispute.

Then form your own conclusion.

I am comfortable with that.

I no longer need everyone to agree with me.

I only need the record to be here.

And then I can get back to living my life.