when this whole thing happened, it took me by surprise, because i thought the landlord was a male named ryan. so, when i say i've never met her that's an understatement - all communication was, on the surface, with a male. when i was charged with applying for an apartment too many times, i thought i was repeatedly applying to an apartment complex run by a man named ryan.
you can imagine, then, that i was confused when the charges claimed i had harassed a woman named caroline chevalier, who claimed she was using the name ryan on the internet.
in my application, i point out that i am skeptical of the claim, and suggest that the case was presented that way to maximize chance of conviction - and that there really is probably some guy named ryan out there and he needs to testify to the tribunal. as all of the evidence in the case is addressed to ryan, and none of it to caroline, i named ryan as the secondary defendant in the case. i named caroline as the primary defendant because she is the one that filed the vexatious charges, and thus is the one guilty of discrimination and intimidation. further, she seems to be the actual owner - if ryan exists, he is likely an employee.
the tribunal also seems to be curious in uncovering the truth of the matter, and caroline's outburst no doubt did not help her cause. so, she was to indicate to the tribunal by the end of the day today whether ryan would be presenting a defence of his own, or if she would do the talking for him.
no response. again. is she preventing herself from being caught filing a false report?
and, it just demonstrates the point - she's never going to file this response. she's just going to make baseless attacks, and cry victim without evidence. so, let's get on with it.