[1]         In its application of November 23, 2022, the corporate landlord alleges that the tenant abandoned the dwelling in November of 2022 but failed to pay the rent for that month in the amount of $862.

[2]         The foregoing sum is claimed with interest, indemnity (article 1619 C.c.Q.) and judicial costs.

[3]         On December 29, 2022, the landlord amended its application to claim an additional sum of $7,750 in material damages with interest, indemnity, and costs.

[4]         It alleges that the tenant failed to use the dwelling with prudence and diligence. It makes mention of damages to the kitchen – appliances, counter tops, and cupboards – and elsewhere in the dwelling, damaged floors, and doors. It adds that its employees were obliged to rid the dwelling of garbage and abandoned belongings, i.e., furniture and clothing.

[5]         Pursuant to articles 2803 and 2804 of the Civil Code of Quebec, it was incumbent upon the landlord to make preponderant proof of its claims.

“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.”

[6]         According to the foregoing provisions, a plaintiff’s success is contingent upon his ability to persuade the trier of fact that his version of the case is not simply possible, but probable.

[7]         In this regard, the comments of the Honorable Bisson, J.C.A. in the case of Posluns c. Zellers Ltd. (C.A. Québec 200-09-000356-789) are particularly instructive : « La simple possibilité n’est pas suffisante: il faut une probabilité, bien qu’il ne soit pas nécessaire que cette dernière soit tellement forte qu’elle exclut toute autre possibilité. (…) le premier juge parle de « certitude raisonnable ». Il s’agit sans doute là d’une expression inappropriée, car le fardeau qui reposait sur les appelants était plutôt d’engager la faute par une balance des probabilités. »

[8]         The landlord produced nary a photograph that could have reflected its purported damages.

[9]         Nor did it produce documentary evidence of its alleged expenses, save for an invoice that is addressed to Melanie Muise (the tenant). The invoice is dated December 20, 2021 but whoever rendered  the services delineated  therein did not deign to identify himself. The document simply calls upon the recipient to "make  all cheques payable to Riverside investments" and thanks the recipient for her business. 

[10]     The landlord's mandatary said that the work had been done by a janitor. However, the latter had not been called upon to testify and the Tribunal was not told why the work for which the landlord had ostensibly been charged did not fall within the scope of the janitor's duties as Riverside's employee.

[11]     Was it incumbent upon the Tribunal to advise the landlord of the serious lacunae in its proof?

[12]     The undersigned thinks not.

[13]     It is all well and good to offer a modicum of assistance -as opposed to legal advice, one should add- to an unrepresented, natural person whose real estate holdings are, for example, limited to a modest duplex.

[14]     However, corporate entities for whom residential leases are part and parcel of their quotidian affairs are deemed to have the wherewithal and sophistication with which to mount a persuasive case.

[15]     That said, the landlord proved, by preponderance, that the tenant failed to pay the rent for November of 2022 and will be awarded the requested sum of $862 under this heading.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE TRIBUNAL:

[16]     GRANTS the application in part;

[17]     CONDEMNS the tenant to pay to the landlord the sum of $862 with interest at the legal rate plus the indemnity pursuant to article 1619 C.c.Q. calculated from November 1st, 2022 plus judicial costs in the amount of $107;

[18]     DISMISSES the other conclusions.