Statement of Facts – Part 7 – 9

AUGUST 25, 2017

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

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

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

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

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

“ Date/Time Details of the Events

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AUGUST 29, 2017

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

Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy stated “ We are writing to you today to respectfully request that you stop with the false accusations of misconduct, the accusations of racism and bigotry, as well as the aggressive and confrontational behavior with the staff. The behavior of yourself and your partner is considered harassment under the Residential Tenancies Act and liable for an eviction using a Form N5, as noted below. As you recently just received the first N5, that gave you 7 days to stop this type of behavior, we now have grounds with these recent emails received from you to issue the 2″ Form N5 with the Landlord and Tenant Board, once the 7 days expire on Friday, as they contain more harassment. This 2″ Form N5 will be required to be filed with the Landlord and Tenant Board for a hearing for an eviction and the filing fee of $190.00 will be added to your rental account for reimbursement. Workplace harassment is also covered under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. 0.1. for employees. We are issuing these Form N5’s due to the refusal of entry and the harassment of the staff, which is our legal right and responsibility. Management don’t need your permission to enter the apartment any time between 8:00 am — 8:00 pm to inspect it, complete repairs, or for. any reasonable reason acceptable under the Residential Tenancies Act. If we have to enter every day, all day, for a month for a valid reason, we can do that. It doesn’t matter if it’s inconvenient for you or if you are not home, even if you don’t agree that the work being done is needed, we can enter as long as notice of entry is given for a valid reason. We do not wish to evict anyone, but we can no longer accept this behavior towards the staff nor the lack of cooperation with the entry of the apartment for valid reasons. If you feel you have legitimate reasons to believe your accusations are true against the staff, please provide the proof and file a complaint with the Toronto Police and we will gladly work with them or you may call the Landlord and Tenant Board to see what they can do to assist you at 416-645-8080.  Please note the definitions copied and pasted below for your review on Harassment. We have all letters and emails showing this harassment of the staff on file, as well as the refusal of entry to the apartment.  “A tenant engages in harassment by making repeated, derogatory, personal comments directed at the employee and/or to other tenants about the conduct, dress, ethnicity or work ethic of a superintendent; or, engaging in “bullying”, by threatening the landlord’s employee with loss of employment or through verbal abuse directed at the employee. Most landlords and on-site staff have probably encountered the tenant who uses verbal abuse, personal attacks, threats, and harassment. The law takes this kind of harassment seriously. Landlords have a legal obligation to take steps (including eviction of the tenant) to ensure that such harassment stops. Section 36 of the RTA confirms that harassment of Landlords (which includes employees) by a tenant is conduct which interferes with a landlord’s legal interest. Section 36 RTA states: “A tenant shall not harass, obstruct, coerce, threaten or interfere with a landlord”. A breach of this section of the RTA by a tenant properly gives rise to service of an N5 Notice of Termination on the grounds of “interference with the landlord’s legal interest, Thank you for your time and your cooperation in these matters. ”

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

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

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

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

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

AUGUST 30, 2017

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can a landlord change the locks?

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

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

About entering the rental unit

Entry without written notice

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So again Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy has not missed out on another opportunity to threaten and try and inconvenience the Applicant and her family. This time Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy refuses to even consider working with the Applicant, and in fact has NEVER made any attempts to work with Applicant even though on numerous occasions she falsely claims to have tried. “ We have tried to work with you the last year “

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

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

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

Does this sound like co-operation? Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy cannot produce one example of where she has tried to “ work ” with the Applicant when wanting to enter the unit. Again, this is Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy making-up false claims that are only beneficial to her and her situation and conveniently cast a negative light upon the Applicant and her family.

Again it appears that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy again is trying to do everything she can to inconvenience the Applicant and her husband. Again we can only believe that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy was again hoping to get into the Applicants unit unattended so she could report back to Alto Properties Inc. owners on what she seen.

SEPTEMBER 1, 2017

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

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

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

  • Interior – Bathroom – Ceiling not maintained free of holes, cracks, damaged and deteriorated materials. Namely: bath tub ceiling has peeling paint. Appears to be water damage. Repairs required 27.A.
  • Interior – Kitchen – The supplied piece(s) of equipment and/or appliance(s) in or on the property is not kept in a satisfactory working condition.
  • Namely: The stove oven is not capable of reaching a high enough temperature to safely cook food. Repairs required.  5.B.
  • Interior – Living Room – Exterior window not maintained weather-tight.
  • Namely: Living room window is unable to be locked and secured. When trying to close one side, the opposite window opens. Repairs required 21.A.(1)
  • Interior – Living Room – Window that is capable of being opened, has a defective locking/latching mechanism.
  • Namely: Living room window is unable to be locked and secured. When trying to close one side, the opposite window opens. Requires repairs.  21.C. ”

SEPTEMBER 5, 2017

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

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

AUGUST 25, 2017 7:35 PM. RECEIVED ANOTHER LONG AND HARASSING EMAIL FROM T303 ABOUT APARTMENT KEYS AND DOOR LOCK AND FALSE ACCUSATIONS OF STAFF SMELLING LIKE ALCOHOL AND MAKING DEMANDS ABOUT HOW THE KEY SITUATION WILL WORK. COPY IS ATTACHED OF EMAIL. REFUSED ACCESS TO STAFF TO CHANGE LOCKS FOR EASY ACCESS FOR REPAIRS. SHE AND HER PARTNER HAVE MADE NUMEROUS HARASSING AND DEROGATORY COMMENTS TO STAFF OF BEING RACIST AND A BIGOT. THEY HAVE BEEN CONFRONTATIONAL AND AGGRESSIVE TOWARDS THE STAFF IN PERSON AND INTERFERES WITH THE RIGHTS OF THE PROPERTY OWNER IN COMPLETING REPAIRS BY DENYING ENTRY. 1ST N5 WAS ISSUED FRIDAY AUGUST 25, 2017. ”

It is pretty obviously Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy only motives for filing her bias and racially motivated eviction application where not that because of a the refusal of a lock change, where it will be proven that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy threw away the key from their Alto Properties Inc. lock box to create the tool that provoked the lock change as to inconvenience, stress and harass the Applicant and her family.

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

It cannot be argued that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy harassed and inconvenienced the “ Black ” Applicant only because she refused to no longer tolerate Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy  bias, bully, racist, bigot and childish games towards her and our family.

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

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

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

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

SEPTEMBER 8, 2017

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

SEPTEMBER 11, 2017

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 ( Notice of Entry ) August 29, 2016 – “ Tenant ( was ) did not answer door. Either not home ”     and ( Email ) August 30, 2016 – “ I was at your door this morning with Pest Control but there was no answer ” Both these notes convey the same message. Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy and the pest control knocked on the Applicants door and no one answered.   

  ( Notice Of Entry ) August 29, 2016 – “ dog was going mad so tech would not enter ”     and( Email ) August 30, 2016 – “ the technician refused to enter as your dog was growling and barking answer ” Both these notes complement each other that the pet dog Cassie was present and protecting the unit while the family was out and that the pest control technician would not enter the unit due to dog.   

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the email Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella stated,

  • “ we scheduled Terminix Pest Control to treat your apartment ”
  • “ entry was not gained due to dog at the door barking and growling ”
  • “ there was no answer ”
  • “ We will require safe access for this treatment to be completed ”

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

What is amazing is that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy even address the issue of needing to get into the Applicants unit, “ We will require safe access for this treatment to be completed ”

How did Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy expect to get “ safe access ” into the Applicants unit if she had    “ No Keys ”?  It appears that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy is more worried about getting “ safe access ” than getting in because according to her own hand written notes, she has “ No keys ”!

It makes absolutely no sense why Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy is worrying about access, it only makes sense if you intended and are able to get in.

So obviously with that said, Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy had to have the key for the Applicants unit for this statement to make logical sense.

( Referring to Document # 113 ) – Another interesting fact that cannot be disputed and is very hard to believe. Is that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy, using her hand written notes as a reference, does not mention or make a reference to having “ No Keys ” in the 1st illegal  N5 she gave to the Applicant 3 days later.

( Referring to Document # 38, 39, 40 ) – Stella Reddy 3 page N5 to Applicant – August 31, 2016

“ 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. ”

It appears that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy thinks it is far more important to talk everything else, but the “ No Keys ” issue in all of these documents.

One would think that as the superintend of the building, Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy would have express her concerns for the missing key and access, first and foremost in all of her communications with the Applicant. Instead she makes absolutely no mention of it. Why?

  • Could it be that the hand written statement “ No Keys ” on Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy’s Notice of Entry to the Applicant did not exist at the time of her writing her email to the Applicant the following day?
  • Could it be that the hand written statement “ No Keys ” was a suspicious and continent afterthought by Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy in an attempt to try and create some form of legal documentation that she thought would help prove her innocents after being accused of throwing away the Applicants keys on August 25, 2017?
  • Could it be that the hand written statement “ No Keys ” was totally missed by Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy while she was writing her email to the Applicant the following day?
  • Could it be that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy considered the statement of “ No Keys ” as being only important enough to note of her copy of the  Notice of Entry, but it was irrelevant and unnecessary to address it when corresponding with the Applicant over the following 3 days?

( Referring to Document # 114 ) – Now the Human Rights Tribunal needs to focus on Notice of Entry dated for September 2, 2016 – “ No one home, Did not contain dog. We have no key “

Unlike the August 29, 2916 hand written notes from the Notice of Entry, It certainly appears that everything in the note was written at the same time.

  • No one home
  • Did not contain dog
  • We have no key

It also appears that it was all written with the same pen, and everything seems to flow constantly. No side notes or after thoughts.

There is only one HUGE problem for Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy with this Notice of Entry date September 2, 2016!

There can be no doubt, argument or debate as to when this was not written, and therefore it can be concluded when it was.

  • You see the Human Rights Tribunal needs to remember that on September 2, 2016 a pest control technician and Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy did attend the Applicants unit.
  • The pest control technician did enter the unit and sprayed while Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy waited in the hall.
  • And as a quick reminder, the pest control technician left and complemented the Applicant husband on the great job he had done to try and control the roach problem.
  • Let us also remember that is when Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy suddenly became a roach powder expert and tried to bait the Applicants husband into so heated debate about the use of too much powder.

So you see, Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy hand written statement “ No one home, Did not contain dog. We have no key ” is no obviously a lie and a conspiracy to create false documentation in an attempt to have the Applicant and family removed from the building.

Now there is a chance that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy might be so foolish as to say that this appointment never happened. Well there are a few ways to verify the existence of this appointment.

  1. The Human Rights Tribunal can look at Alto Properties Inc. tax returns for expenses for the year.
  2. The Human Rights Tribunal could ask to see their company check book/log.
  3. The Human Rights Tribunal could ask to see their banks statements, looking for any checks cashed around that time.  Than request that Alto Properties Inc. request a copy of the checks from the bank.

Or the Human Rights Tribunal can consider the following.

If it was that the appointment never happened. That would have meant that the Applicant would have had to cancel it. Now let us all consider that idea for a minute.

Does the Human Rights Tribunal believe that the Applicant could have cancelled this 2nd appointment for pest control to come in and spray in a 4 day period, and Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy never issued her another N5?

Does the Human Rights Tribunal believe that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy would have allowed this opportunity to pass and not giving the Applicant another N5 for missing a scheduled pest control appoint within a 4 day period?

Let us remember that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy gave the Applicant a N5, 4 days earlier, despite knowing that the Applicant was well with in her rights not to allow her entry as the Applicant was NEVER GIVE THE REQUIRED 24 HOURS PROPER NOTICE as mandated by the Ontario Residential Tenancies Act.

Let us all remember that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy had to of known that she did not meet the required 24 notice, and yet she still gave the Applicant the N5 without fear of any repercussions.

With this information above, does anyone still realistically really believe that the scheduled pest control appointment never happened and suddenly Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy had a change of heart and did not serve them a legitimate N5?

As a side note, it is important to review one more situation from the 2 Notice of Entry’s.

( Referring to Document # 113, 114 ) The Applicant and her husband and were confused by what Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy meant when she stated

  • “ No keys ”
  • “We have no key ”

Why does Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy on August 30, 2016, after being 2 1/2 hours late, state the word “ keys ”. And 4 days later state “ key ”?

At the time and to this present date, the Applicant has had only 1 lock on her unit door. The one that came with the unit. The Applicant has not added and second lock and yet Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy thinks there were two, despite standing in front of the door only minutes earlier with the pest control technician before making her hand written notes? Maybe Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy did not go to the right door and went to a different unit to spray?

But four days later Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy suddenly notes that the Applicant inly has 1 lock on her unit door.  This is the same day that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy hand written notes state that the appointment never happened.

So why the difference is accounts for the amount of locks on the Applicants unit door?

It can only be assumed that when the Applicant called out Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy about throwing away her key from the office lockbox. Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy panicked and decided that she needed some form of documentation to support her when she states there was never a key to be thrown away.

So Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy grabbed known date where she knew the appointment had not taken placed, August 30, 2016. And made the quick little side note “ No Keys ”.

At the time Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy did not consider or pounder what she was writing. She basically reacted to being called out by the Applicant without thinking.

Sometime after that, Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy decided that it might look better is she had a 2nd document that collaborated the 1st . Hence the September 2, 2016 Notice of Entry with the hand written note “ No one home, Did not contain dog. We have no key. ”

No it appears that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy did not catch her first mistake when she stated the words “ keys ” and then used the word “ key ” during her attempts to create her fabricated  and deceptive documents.

 Again it appears that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy reacted to being called out by the Applicant without thinking.

And in her moment of distress, Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy never realized that she actually did attend the Applicants unit on September 2, 2016 with a pest control technician and the work was done.

Now this evidence only proves the Applicants claims that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy created these two fabricated  and deceptive hand written notes about missing key(s) on or after August 25, 2017, that she intended to present to the Landlord Tenant Board on September 26, 2017 if question about her conduct in harassing the Applicant in wanting to change the Applicants lock.

So again it appears that Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy had deliberately made false statements on a legal document that she used or intended to use to have the Applicant and her family removed from the building.

Why else would Alto Properties Inc. employee Stella Reddy have created this legal document if she never intended to submit it to the Government agency, like the Landlord and Tenant Board?

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