[1]         In its application of October 25, 2022, the corporate landlord prevails upon the Tribunal to cancel the lease and expel the tenant.

[2]         Judicial costs are requested as well.

[3]         In support of its conclusions, the landlord maintains that the tenant failed to comply with a decision rendered on April 27, 2022 wherein he was ordered to pay the rent on the 1st of each month “… et ce, pour ce qui reste à courir du présent terme du bail et pour la reconduction le cas échéant;”

[4]         In keeping with the text of article 1973 C.c.Q., the foregoing order was issued pursuant to the Tribunal’s finding that the frequency of the tenant’s late payments was seriously prejudicial to the landlord’s finances.

"1973. Where either of the parties applies for the resiliation of the lease, the court may grant it immediately or order the debtor to perform his obligations within the period it determines, except where payment of the rent is over three weeks late.

Where the debtor does not comply with the decision of the court, the court resiliates the lease on the application of the creditor."

[5]         The decision of April 27, 2022 was neither revoked nor appealed. It is also instructive to note that the tenant was present at the hearing of February 3, 2022 but adduced no evidence to the effect that the landlord had somehow frustrated his attempts to pay the rent in a timely manner.

[6]         When the parties were convened for proof and hearing of the landlord’s subsequent application, the tenant was not in attendance.

[7]         However, a friend appeared on his behalf. He told the Tribunal that the tenant had mandated him to ask that the hearing be postponed. He explained that the tenant had tested positive for Covid-19 on the day that preceded the hearing and as such, was unable to be present.

[8]         The landlord’s attorney contested the request to postpone and it was incumbent upon the Tribunal to determine whether a postponement was warranted.

[9]         The Tribunal denied the request for a postponement and its reasons for doing so were duly recorded.

[10]     Nevertheless, a summary of the explanation that the Tribunal shared with the parties may be helpful.

[11]     A Tribunal’s decision to grant or deny a postponement is discretionary. That said, there is no such thing as unfettered discretion and it always incumbent upon the Tribunal to exercise its discretion in a thoughtful and reasonable manner.

[12]     The tenant’s mandatary produced a photograph of what appeared to be a store bought Covid-19 self-testing kit.

[13]     The device purported to show that whoever used it tested positive for the virus.

[14]     The mandatary was not present when the test was administered and hence, could not affirm that it was the tenant who had tested positive.

[15]     The Tribunal was not told if the tenant’s absence was precautionary or precluded by debilitating symptoms.

[16]     Nor was it privy to a perfunctory note from a physician, nurse, or a pharmacist.

[17]     What is more, there was no evidence to the effect that the tenant had dashed off an explanatory note to the Tribunal. Nor did he attempt to forewarn the landlord.

[18]     Based on the foregoing considerations, the request to postpone was denied.

[19]     The evidence adduced by the landlord strongly suggests that even if the hearing had been postponed, the outcome would not have been different.

[20]     The order that the Tribunal issued on April 27, 2022 was executory on the 27th of May.

[21]     The landlord proved, by preponderance, that in June of 2022, the rent was paid on the 2nd. The rent for July was paid on the 6th. The rent for August was paid on the 8th of that month. The rent for September was paid on the 12th as was the rent for October. November’s rent was paid on the 8th.

[22]     For whatever reason, the tenant has consistently failed to pay the rent in a timely manner. What is more, his chronic tardiness has been seriously prejudicial to the landlord.

[23]     Again, the integrity of the judicial system of Quebec requires that the orders issued by its tribunals be taken seriously.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE TRIBUNAL:

[24]     CANCELS the lease and orders the expulsion of the tenant and all other occupants of the dwelling;

[25]     CONDEMNS the tenant to pay to the landlord judicial costs in the amount of $103.