[1]      The landlords filed an application at the Tribunal on December 9, 2014.

[2]      They allege that the tenant caused serious damage to her dwelling and to the three dwellings below her apartment as well.

[3]      Consequently, they ask that the lease be cancelled and the tenant evicted.

Proof and discussion

[4]      The parties are bound by a residential lease which began on July 1, 2012 and terminated on June 30, 2015.

[5]      The lease was subsequently renewed and the tenant currently pays rent in the amount of $ 585.

[6]      Something untoward happened on November 14, 2015.

[7]      According to the landlords’ representative, a blocked kitchen sink in the tenant’s dwelling caused the water to overflow.

[8]      The kitchen floor was flooded and water seeped into the three dwellings below.

[9]      Moreover, on that same day, a second flood occurred with similar results.

[10]   The damage to all four dwellings was significant.

[11]   The landlords’ claim is grounded on Articles 1855 and 1863 of the Civil Code of Québec.

[12]   Article 1855 C.c.Q. says, inter alia, that a tenant is bound to use the dwelling with prudence and diligence over the course of the lease.

[13]   In Article 1863 C.c.Q., we are told that when a tenant fails to fulfill her obligations, the landlord may ask that the lease be cancelled « where the non-performance causes serious injury to him or, in the case of the lease of an immovable, to the other occupants. »

[14]   No one contests that flooding occurred on the 14^th of November 2015.

[15]   However, in their capacity as plaintiffs, it was incumbent upon the landlords to prove, by preponderance, that the tenant was to blame for the two incidents.

« 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. »

[16]   Given that the cause of the blockage was never established - the testimony of a plumber or insurance adjustor might have been helpful - the tribunal will conclude that the landlords failed to discharge their burden of proof.

[17]   It is also instructive to note that the incidents of November 14, 2015 were never repeated and that the landlords were fully compensated by their insurers.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE TRIBUNAL :

[18]   DISMISSES the application.