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 cylinder.
- Cylinders must be kept outdoors.
- The barbeque must be clear of all combustible materials.
- The cylinder relief valve must be at least one meter horizontally from any building opening below it, and three meters from building intake.”
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 Luigi Liscio 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 Angie and Chris 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 payingyour 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 Angie and Chris, 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 859kennedyroad@gmail.com. “
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, 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 Anthony 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, The email for the balance of rent is altoproperties@gmail.com. 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, I was wondering if you sent the transfer yet? I have Anthony 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 theywished 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 made.
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 Luigi Liscio or his son Alto Properties Inc. owner Antony Liscio, 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 Luigi Liscio and/or his son Alto Properties Inc. owner Antony Liscio 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 Luigi Liscio and his son Alto Properties Inc. owner Antony Liscio 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 Luigi Liscio and his son Alto Properties Inc. owner Antony Liscio 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 Angie 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 Angie 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 Angie cursing like a lunatic about having to come to the office to collect rent. This is how much Alto Properties Inc. employee Angie 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 PHONE NUMBER, 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 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 PHONE NUMBER, 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 thatcontained 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 “ 303 – PHONE NUMBER ”
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 Angie and Chris. 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 “ PHONE NUMBER “ 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 required 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 entry AT THE TIME of entry.
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 Luigi Liscio and his son Alto Properties Inc. owner Anthony Liscio 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.