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 Luigi Liscio and his son Alto Properties Inc. owner Antony Liscio 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, 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 neighbor, 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 Luigi Liscio and his son Alto Properties Inc. owner Anthony Liscio 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 Luigi Liscio and his son Alto Properties Inc. owner Antony Liscio 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 Luigi Liscio and his son Alto Properties Inc. owner Antony Liscio 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, 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 #9 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, 42, 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 Luigi Liscio and his son Alto Properties Inc. owner Antony Liscio and Alto Properties Employee Stella Reddy that stated.
“ Dear Louie, Antonio 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 3:01 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.
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 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:
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:
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.
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 entry at the time of entry.
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 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 Residential Tenancies Act, no landlord shall harass, obstruct, coerce, threaten or interfere with a tenant.
Louie, Antonio 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 Act.
- 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 information.
- 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 day.
- Alto Properties Inc. Employee Stella illegal N5 dated for August 31, 2016.
- The camera in elevator that looks directly into the Applicants unit when exiting elevator.
- Alto Properties Inc. Employee Stella sudden refusal to take the Applicants cash rent payments.
- Alto Properties Inc. Employee Stella previous racist and prejudice statement and question.
- 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 eviction.
- Alto Properties Inc. and Alto Properties Inc. Employee attempts to build a case for eviction against the Applicant and her husband.
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 unmistakable 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 behavior described on page 2 and avoid eviction. ”
After Alto Properties Inc. owner Luigi Liscio and his son Alto Properties Inc. owner Anthony Liscio received the above letter from the Applicant via the same email. Neither Alto Properties Inc. owner Luigi Liscio or his son Alto Properties Inc. owner Anthony Liscio 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 Luigi Liscio and his son Alto Properties Inc. owner Anthony Liscio 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 Luigi Liscio and his son Anthony Liscio were 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 Luigi Liscio and his son Alto Properties Inc. owner Anthony Liscio lack 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 Luigi Liscio and his son Alto Properties Inc. owner Anthony Liscio 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 Luigi Liscio 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 Luigi Liscio and his son Alto Properties Inc. owner Anthony Liscio 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.