[1]         In its application of May 4, 2023, the corporate landlord alleges that the tenant damaged an essential component of the dwelling’s security system and asks to be awarded material damages in the sum of $1,722.22.

[2]         No mention is made of interest, indemnity (article 1619 C.c.Q.) or judicial costs.

[3]         When the parties were initially convened on July 21, 2023, the tribunal informed the landlord’s representative that it required the testimony of the technician who had examined and repaired the system.

[4]         The tribunal adjourned the hearing pending the technician’s explanation as to the cause of the alleged damages.

[5]         However, when the parties were reconvened on February 8, 2024, neither the landlord nor the tenant deigned to be present.

[6]         In its capacity as plaintiff, it was incumbent upon the landlord to make preponderant proof of its allegations and conclusions.

« 2803. A person seeking to assert a right shall prove the facts on which his claim is based.

A person who claims that a right is null, has been modified or is extinguished shall prove the facts on which he bases his claim. »

« 2804. Evidence is sufficient if it renders the existence of a fact more probable than its non-existence, unless the law requires more convincing proof. »

[7]         Given the absence of the technician’s testimony, the tribunal will conclude that the landlord failed to discharge its burden of proof.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE TRIBUNAL:

[8]         DISMISSES the application.