[1]      In his application of April 1, 2019, the tenant complains of an infestation of vermin and insects.  He says that the dwelling is also bedevilled by the following deficiencies:  a floor in the master bedroom in need of repair, windows that cannot be opened or shut with ease, the accumulation of water on one of his walls, a bathroom ceiling in need of repair and a bathroom vanity that is falling apart.

[2]      He asks that the landlord be ordered to make the requisite repairs and asks that the rent of $550 per month be reduced by 40% retroactive to July 1, 2018. He also asks to be awarded moral damages in the amount of $2,000.

[3]      The tribunal was first seized of this case on September 24, 2019.

[4]      The tribunal heard the testimony of Ms. Girard, a social worker whose principal mandate is to promote the well-being of the tenant’s small children.

[5]      She told the tribunal that the tenant and his family occupy a dwelling in the basement of the landlord’s five-plex on rue D’Iberville.

[6]      She said that when she visited the dwelling two weeks before the hearing, she saw a large opening in the master bedroom. She said that the opening was related to plumbing work that was in progress. She made mention of water damage and said that the windows in the kitchen were “impossible” to open. She also said that she saw traps that had been laid down to catch rodents. She said that the tenant’s eight-year-old was ill at ease in the dwelling and said that the tenant wanted to move out.

[7]      She also made mention of a storage room that adjoins the dwelling. It appears that the landlord initially tolerated the tenant’s use of this room as a kind of annex to his dwelling but then denied access to same.

[8]      No mention was made of this matter in the tenant’s application.

[9]      The landlord said that the tenant used the room in an abusive manner but the tribunal will readily conclude that this issue has nothing whatsoever to do with the case at bar.

[10]   The tribunal adjourned the hearing before it had a chance to hear from the tenant. The raison d’être of the adjournment was to allow for the production of a municipal inspector’s report as well as the report of an exterminator.

[11]   When the parties were reconvened on December 16, 2019, only the landlord was present.

[12]    He told the tribunal that the tenant abandoned the dwelling on November 7, 2019.

[13]   Hence, the tenant’s request for specific performance orders was no longer pertinent.

[14]   Moreover, the tribunal heard no testimony in support of the tenant’s request for moral damages.

[15]   Pursuant to article 2803 of the Civil Code of Québec, it was incumbent upon the tenant to make preponderant proof of his damages.

[16]   With regard to his claim for a rent reduction, the tenant had to prove, by preponderance, that even though he advised the landlord of the dwelling’s deficiencies in a timely manner (Article 1866 C.c.Q.), the landlord failed to intervene with the requisite celerity.

[17]   No letters of demand were produced at the hearing of November 24, 2019.

[18]   On July 29, 2019, Ms. Girard and her colleague, Ms. Jabbour, sent a letter to the Tribunal wherein they delineated the deficiencies that purportedly undermined the tenant’s peaceable enjoyment of the dwelling. They also said that the tenant’s verbal complaints to the landlord had been to no avail and added that they (Girard and Jabbour) felt obliged to bring these matters to the attention of the municipality.

[19]    The tenant did not testify to discussions that he might have had with the landlord and Ms. Girard’s allegation in her letter of July 29, 2019 that these discussions had taken place was inadmissible hearsay evidence.

[20]   For his part, the landlord testified, without contradiction, that he was first informed of the deficiencies by the municipal inspector in late February of 2019  and intervened on March 1, 2019 with a view to making the requisite repairs.

[21]   He said that following the exterminator’s treatment on May 30, 2019, nary a mouse was seen in the dwelling again. He added that in that same month, ceilings that required work had been repaired, all windows had been fixed and the vanity in the bathroom had been replaced.

[22]   Moreover, there is nothing in the municipal inspector’s report that would suggest that the landlord had failed to make the repairs that the municipality brought to his attention.

[23]   Ms. Girard’s efforts on the part of the tenant and his family were laudable but in his capacity as plaintiff, it was the tenant alone who bore the burden of proof pursuant to Article 2803 C.c.Q.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE TRIBUNAL:

[24]   DISMISSES the application.