CEDAW/C/51/D/19/2008 belongings, but at every point in the legal process, she was told that it was not possible. She maintains that the failure to reach a settlement in her lawsuit was a result of discrimination perpetrated against her by lawyers assigned to the case and by officials at the Northwest Territories Legal Services Board. As an aboriginal person, she experienced racism, and as a woman, she experienced sexism. Both of these aspects of discrimination contributed to a pattern of behaviour that was ―at best bullying and at worst abusive‖. Poverty, unemployment, dislocation and homelessness resulting form the theft of her home played a role because she could not afford a lawyer of her own choosing, and at times she could not afford the contribution that the Northwest Territories Legal Services Board demanded in order to provide her services. She maintains that the failure to reach a settlement was impacted by the fact that she was assigned a number of different lawyers in ten years. The failure to reach a settlement was also a direct result of actions or lack of action on the part of those lawyers. Most of the lawyers would not ―hear‖ her instructions, but instead gave her instructions and threatened to quit if she disputed their position; some lawyers acted on her behalf without her knowledge or consent. She had no choice about which lawyer she got and those who were assigned to her case by the Northwest Territories Legal Services Board were not held accountable by it. The author provides numerous examples of misconduct on the part of the lawyers assigned ex officio to represent her, and maintains that she lost her case because she did not have the expertise to pursue it through the legal system on her own, and she did not receive adequate legal representation. 9.4 With regard to the remedies that the author wishes to obtain from the State party, the author describes the hardships that she and her family were forced to endure as a result of losing her home and states that she would be grateful if she could receive compensation for the damage that has occurred but that she could not ―put a price tag on the extreme maltreatment we had to endure as a result of losing our family home.‖ She further states that the remedies that would make a difference would be receiving a three-bedroom home; rebuke of the Government of the Northwest Territories, including the Northwest Territories Housing Corporation and the Northwest Territories Legal Services Board outlining their illegal and discriminatory behaviour; a commitment to train and employ more Aboriginal people in the legal system; reimbursement of all the legal fees she paid over the 10 years. 9.5 On 22 December 2011, the State party reiterated its main observations on the merits of the communication. Consideration of the merits 10.1 The Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the author and by the State party, as provided for in article 7, paragraph 1, of the Optional Protocol. 10.2 In the present case, the Committee observes that the author ’s name was removed from the Assignment of Lease, making her partner, who was not a member of the aboriginal community, the sole owner of the property; that she lost her share in the house as a result of an alleged fraudulent transaction effected by her partner; that such change was impossible without action or inaction of the Northwest Territories Housing Corporation; that the Northwest Territories Housing Corporation was an agent of the State party; that her partner was serving as a director of the Housing Authority Board and therefore occupied a position of authority; that she was not informed by the Housing Corporation of the annulment of her property rights, despite the fact that she was the eligible right holder as a member of the Rae-Edzo community. These facts show that the author’s property rights were prejudiced as a result of an act of a public authority acting together with her partner. The Committee also observes that the author was subsequently denied access to the family home by her partner, who changed the locks and evicted her while she was attempting to 15