CEDAW/C/51/D/19/2008 The author appealed against this decision in the Court of Appeal for the Northwest Territories but her appeal was dismissed without any reasons provided in writing. No further appeal was made by the author in the Supreme Court of Canada regarding the second action. 2.11 On 16 November 2004, the author initiated a new (third) action dealing solely with the issue of her interest in and right to the leasehold title and possession of the property. In January 2005, a counsel for the respondent, the partner’s estate (hereinafter the ―Estate‖), brought a motion seeking summary judgment dismissing her action or security for costs in the alternative. The property in question had been sold by the Estate to third-party purchasers and a transfer of lease had been given to them in early November 2004. The author’s position was that the Estate still held her legal title and equitable interest, which she had acquired prior to the purchasers in question. On 27 May 2005, an affidavit from the then Tenant Relations officer of Rae-Edzo was submitted during the third court action, which stated that the minutes of the meeting of the Board of Directors of the Housing Authority of 1 November 1990, denied the deceased partner’s application for housing on the grounds that he did not belong to the community, however, the said minutes were missing. The affidavit also stated that the Tenant Relations officer was instructed by the Board of Directors to contact the author and advise her to apply for housing by listing her partner as her spouse. The affidavit further stated that after the signing of the Agreement of Purchase and Sale, the original copy of the document was sent to the main office of the Northwest Housing Corporation at Yellowknife, while a copy was retained by the Tenant Relations officer for record. However both copies of the Agreement were said to be missing and lost, and that there was no explanation for the situation. 2.12 On 21 July 2005, the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories, while hearing the application for summary dismissal in the third court action, held that since the third action sought essentially the same relief as the previous two actions, the author had to pay the amount of the taxed bill of costs in court with respect to the previous court actions as well as post security for the respondent’s costs in this third action before continuing with the case. The Court ordered that the cost payments had to be made within 60 days of the filing of the memorandum and that the case was stayed till compliance was met. As the author could not comply with the time limit set by the Court for the payment of costs and the security, the case was dismissed on 26 April 2006 by the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories. 2.13 The author contends that she has exhausted all domestic remedies. She explains that she had to represent herself in the third case because, as a single mother, she did not have the means to retain a private lawyer. Although the author had been represented by many lawyers from the Legal Services Board over a period of 10 years, the lawyers did not comply with her instructions. She submits that a settlement had been negotiated without her consent and contrary to her instructions. She believes that as a result of her refusal of the said settlement, she was denied further legal aid and was obliged to represent herself. The complaint 3.1 The author claims to be the victim of a violation of article 1 of the Convention, because the State party allowed its agents (namely, the Northwest Territories Housing Corporation and the Rae-Edzo Housing Authority) to discriminate against her on the basis of her sex, marital status and cultural heritage, in that it failed to ensure that its agents provide equal treatment to women applicants for housing. 3.2 She also claims that the State party has contravened article 2, paragraph (d), of the Convention, as it failed to ensure that its agents refrain from engaging in any act or practice of discrimination against women, when they removed the author’s name from the lease without her consent. She further contends that the fact that the State party did not take any 5