CEDAW/C/51/D/19/2008 violation, the author must show that it has failed to take appropriate measures to eliminate the discrimination that the author experienced personally as a consequence of her name being removed from the Assignment of Lease, when the same was brought to the authorities’ attention. The State party submits that several efforts were made by the Northwest Territories Housing Corporation, along with the Estate of Mr. Senych, to rectify the situation faced by the author when it was brought to their attention that her name had been removed from the Assignment of Lease. Between June 1996 and August 1996, the Northwest Territories Housing Corporation tried to address the author’s situation by offering her ―other homes in the community of Rae-Edzo that were of comparable size and market value to the Rae-Edzo property.― For instance, the Northwest Territories Housing Corporation offered as settlement to the author a one bedroom duplex (in August 1996) and another Northern Territorial Rental Purchase Program unit (on an unspecified date), both of which the author rejected. Further, on 31 May 1999 and in 2001, the Northwest Territories Housing Corporation and the Estate of her late partner made offers to jointly settle the author’s claim respectively for the amount of $15,000 and $20,000, but these offers were also rejected by the author. The State party notes its understanding that in 2003, the estimated value of the Rae-Edzo property had been found to be $28,500. The State party further notes that according to a 1996 appraisal report submitted by the author, the estimated value of the Rae-Edzo property was $40,000 at that time. The State party thus notes that the value of the author’s undivided one-half interest would likely have been $14,250 in and around the time of the $20,000 offer, and would have been, at the very most, $20,000 at the time of that 2001 offer. The State party maintains that the author's refusals of all of the above reasonable offers to settle this dispute render the allegations with respect to article 2, paragraph (e), of the Convention, as set out in the author’s communication, moot and completely without merit. The State party further submits that the explanations offered by the author in respect of her refusals to settle this dispute do not withstand scrutiny. The author has insisted on receiving a one-half interest in the Rae-Edzo property even though this particular request has long been legally impossible. The State party submits that the Northwest Territories Housing Corporation was actually no longer the registered owner of the property at the time that the settlement negotiations were ongoing, and thus was unable to offer the author a one-half interest in the property. Even in the event that the Northwest Territories Housing Corporation did have the ability to fulfil the author’s requests when settlement negotiations were ongoing, doing so would have required evicting the new tenants from the Rae-Edzo property, thus creating significant inequities. For, in November of 2004, third parties became the registered owners of the leasehold interest in the Rae-Edzo property, and said third parties remain in lawful possession of the property today. 8.10 The State party also submits that it does provide the legislative and other measures necessary to eliminate discrimination against women by any person, organization or enterprise. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (hereafter the ―Charter‖) provides constitutional protection against discrimination against women. In addition, the State party has in place various pieces of domestic human rights legislation prohibiting discrimination against women,7 including discrimination against women on the grounds set out by the author in her communication, as well as specific protection against discrimination in the context of housing and accommodation. The State party submits that the human rights legislation in force in the Northwest Territories at the relevant time was the Fair Practices Act, and refers to section 4 of that Act. 8 The Fair Practices Act was 7 8 The State party referred to sects. 7, 8 and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; the remedial provisions of sects. 24 and 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982; sect. 1, para. (a) of the Canadian Bill of Rights. Section 4 of the Fair Practices Act (repealed 1 July 2004) provided as follows: 11