Você está na página 1de 6

DE MONTREAL OFFICE

File no:

31-130118-089 31 20130118
No request: 41589
G
31-130703-071 31 20130703
51323
G

Date:
Stage Manager:

August 10, 2013


Anne Mailfait, administrative judge

169360 CANADA INC.


Landlord - Plaintiff
(31-130118-089 31 20130118 G)
defendant
(31-130703-071 31 20130703 G)
c.
EVANGELOS KONSTANTAKAKOS
Tenant - Defendant
(31-130118-089 31 20130118 G)
plaintiff
(31-130703-071 31 20130703 G)

H A DECISION

[1] The court has before it two applications together for good for the administration of justice.
[2] On 18 January 2013, the landlord claims the non-payment of rent for the months of November
2012, December 2012 and January 2013 and the termination of the lease for that reason.
[3] As of the hearing, the landlord demanded further, rent the months of February to July 2013.
[4] On July 3, 2013, the tenant claims the conviction of the landlord to pay him $ 15,000 in moral
damages, or $ 2,000 for intimidation, $ 2,000 for trespassing, $ 2 500 for extrajudicial fees, 2000 $ for
violation of privacy, $ 2,000 for loss of electricity, $ 1,000 for abuse of rights and procedures, and
finally, $ 3,500 for trouble and inconvenience.
[5] The appeal is based on Articles 1863, 1971 and 1973 of the Civil Code of Qubec .
[6] Until the day before the hearing, the tenant was receiving advice from his lawyer since it filed its
appearance in the record on July 15, 2013. However, the tenant says he wants to represent himself in
court.

RELEVANT FACTS
[7] The parties are bound by a lease commencing on 1 st July 2012 and renewed until 30 June 2014.
The rent is $ 900.
[8] The landlord claims the payment of rent for months from November 2012 to July 2013, or 7 $ 200.

[9] It also claims payment of Hydro-Qubec accounts ($ 950) that the tenant never wanted to change
the account in his name despite the lease clause to that effect.
Defence and tenant demand
[10] The replica tenant refuses to pay rent for January and February 2013, because it did not accede
to housing during these two months.
[11] Thus, it shows that on 6 January 2013, the building superintendent enters his home while his
nephews live there recently and ordered to leave the dwelling while visiting places with potential
tenants.
[12]

His nephews then leave the housing and the concierge changes the lock on the same day.

[13] The tenant claims to have tried for weeks to contact the landlord to make him argue the illegality
of these facts and you can access the slot. In vain. The tenant has lived with his sister.
[14] Then, about February 4, when he is back at home, the tenant finds that electricity does not
work, including heating. He says the landlord has withheld the current order of the landlord.
[15]

The tenant claims to have gone back to live with her sister.

[16] The same situation recurs February 27, 2013 and the tenant says she called the police. He said
he has no police calling card since the latter only gives to criminal cases.
[17]

He admits that this same February 27, 2013, it covers electricity.

[18]

Based on these facts, the tenant claims to have suffered heavy damage, hence its claims.

[19] He claims to have suffered a medical injury as suffering from the disease of sleep apnea, he
could not operate his camera to electricity.
[20] As for rents, he says he paid for November, December 2012 and March-July 2013
cash. However, some would be received in the counsel of record, and also requires the tenant to the
landlord proof it gives receipts.
[21] When asked by the court on the lateness of its action, given the chronology of the facts in
dispute, the tenant responds that he wanted above all try to find a "logical" solution to the situation.

[22] He also admits to having sent any notice between January and July 2013, when he filed his
appeal. He also claims not to have paid the rent for January and February 2013 on the advice of his
lawyer.
[23] As to the costs of Hydro-Quebec claimed by the landlord, he says the company required the
presence of the landlord to change the subscription holder.
[24] Finally, he mentioned a fact on the air conditioning, but the court allows the objection of
M e Bissonnette fact that it is not alleged in the request of the tenant. This replica that is mainly to
illustrate the bad character and bad faith of the landlord.
[25] In the same vein fits his allegations concerning the lack of fridge and stove in the house for two
months.
The defense of the landlord on the tenant's appeal
[26] In October 2012, she learns the superintendent the tenant intends to vacate the premises and to
install third party, including his son. This fact does not mind so as long as the rent is paid.
[27]

She left Quebec to Florida December 15 and returns January 15, 2013.

[28] On that date, the rent for the months of November and December 2012 remain unpaid due to
two checks "NSF" that occurred in the file. The month of January 2013 is not paid.

[29] She also learns that the nephews of the tenant, from Greece, settled in housing. She also sees
the tenant move in housing estate.
[30] It shall decide, in the absence of any notice from the tenant in order to change the lock because
it believes the tenant is going to move.
[31] According to the landlord, the change of the lock is done around the beginning of February 2013
and it orders the same day, the replacement of the old lock when called to the scene, police advised
him to do so.
[32] Only a few days later she decided to turn off the electricity, and, if it finds that the tenant has
installed air conditioning despite the formal prohibition written lease on it and whereas it is still
responsible for the subscription of Hydro-Qubec.
[33] The landlord files a photograph illustrating the installation of an air conditioning unit with a large
outgoing wire of the brick wall. It demonstrates that, in finding the installation done without permission
of the air conditioner, it took this decision, but the break lasted only a few days. It produces the
relevant invoice to the days of cuts and it quantifies the lack of electricity as well: $ 49.59: by the
number of days billed consumption (59 days), or 84 percent, for a total due of $ 31.92 (84 percent x 38
days) (P2).
ANALYSIS
The demand for the landlord

[34] The landlord establishes a balance with proof of non-payments. Both checks "NSF" of
November and December 2012 and his testimony is, in the court, sufficient evidence.
[35]

The defense tenant is neither credible nor complete.

[36] He claims that it holds the received remained in the counsel of record. However, it formula, early
hearing, no remission. He also admits that his lawyer was still on file just days before the hearing.
[37] The failure of the tenant to present the only relevant and useful evidence in his defense leaves
the court puzzled as to his sincerity and truthfulness of his testimony.
[38] The aggressiveness with which he testifies, or obvious exaggerations of his statements confirm
the doubts of the court on the entire evidence.
"2845 . The probative value of the evidence is left to the discretion of the court. "

[39]

The application of the landlord is allowed.

The tenant's request


[40]

The court questioned again on the consistency of the tenant release.

[41] The landlord says he lived in Florida in December 2012 to 15 January 2013 and this claim is
contradicted by the evidence of the tenant.
[42] He claims to have been evicted from housing January 6, 2013 in the presence of his nephews,
police and concierge. Yet he summoned no witnesses neither nephews nor his sister, nor the police
nor the concierge.
[43] He claims to have suffered great damage because he had to live with her sister and the amount
of his claims illustrates its great pretensions. Nevertheless, it poses no reasonably normal act during
the 6 months and the alleged eviction and the power cut. He says he wanted to find a solution which in
itself remains desirable, but a solution that consists of a total inaction for several weeks she is still a
plausible solution?
[44] Furthermore, his testimony is confused about the moral damages since said he lived with his
sister whenever he would not have lived to housing, without specifying the nature and extent of that
damage and without his sister corroborates his presence at home. He did not dispute that his
nephews have wanted to live in the apartment, which increases the likelihood of release of the
landlord that the tenant had left the house in mid-January to return later.

[45] There is no evidence, except the testimony aggressive, exaggerated and improbable tenant,
that he could not enjoy his flat from January to February 2013.
[46] Regarding the subscription to Hydro-Qubec, the tenant says the company demanded the
presence of the landlord, which is no proof and also appears unlikely.

[47] While the cut of the counter by the landlord is a wrongful act, but it is also isolated and the
resulting damage is not only accepted, but also recognized in the claim of the landlord on electricity
costs SINCE it deducted the amount corresponding to the power loss. Although offender then this is
however not an abuse of law, much less an abuse of process, which is wrongly mentioned in the
request of the tenant.
[48] The tenant also alleged to have been sick because of his sleep apnea, but it lays no medical
evidence to support this assertion. Proof stress and inconvenience that could result is not conclusive.
[49] Also, a lock change is not an intrusion, a violation of privacy especially when it occurs in the
presence of third and occupants while the landlord believed the empty slot. The court believed the
version of the landlord that the same day, realizing her mistake, she replaced the old lock.
[50] In summary, the tenant has to witness without hearing or documentary evidence, his remarks
are aggressive, its not credible versions and clearly exaggerated claims.
"1375. Good faith shall govern the conduct of the parties, both at the time of the birth
of the requirement that it is performed or extinguished. "

[51] The court believes that the imminence of a second trial after the first decision retracted his
claim, convinced the tenant of the need to extend the judicial process saw his failure to pay rent for
more than 8 months, and this, by request based on false allegations and consists of clearly
exaggerated monetary claims.
[52]

His request was denied.

[53] The application of the landlord is allowed and the harm caused justifies the provisional
execution, as provided in Article 82.1 of the Act, the Rgie du logement .
[54] The amounts owed by the tenant are unpaid rent (8 $ 100 - $ 900 x 9 months) and $ 520
electricity costs. Costs "NSF" are rejected for lack of evidence.
[55] CONSIDERING the 2803 articles and 2804 of the Civil Code of Qubec ;
[56] VU Article 2845 of the Civil Code of Qubec ;
[57] VU Articles 6, 7 and 1375 of the Civil Code of Qubec ;
[58] CONSIDERING the patchy evidence of the lessee;
[59] CONSIDERING the preponderance of evidence presented by the landlord;

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT :

[60] DISMISSES the request of the tenant who pays the fee;
[61] WELCOMES the request of the landlord;

[62] terminated the lease and ORDERS the eviction of the tenant and all occupants of the dwelling;

[63] ORDERS provisional execution, notwithstanding the appeal of the deportation order from
10 th day of its date;
[64] SENTENCES the tenant to pay the landlord $ 8 $ 620, plus interest at the legal rate and the
additional indemnity under article 1619 of the Civil Code as of 18 January 2013 on the sum of $ 2,700,
and the balance as of the end of each rent plus $ 78.50 court costs.

Anne Mailfait
Attendee (s):

Hearing Date:

the landlord
M e Sarah Bissonnette, lawyer for the landlord
the tenant
July 16, 2013

NOTICE:
The reader must ensure that decisions consulted are final and
without appeal; the consultation of the docket is a useful precaution.

Você também pode gostar