[1]         In his application of April 29, 2022, the tenant, Mr. Nwabue, seeks to revoke a decision that the administrative judge, Luk Dufort, rendered in the landlord’s favor on April 13, 2022.

[2]         The decision reveals that on March 17, 2022, Judge Dufort was seized of the corporate landlord’s application for the cancellation of the lease and the concomitant expulsion of the tenant pursuant to article 1971 of the Civil Code of Quebec. The landlord asked to be awarded a significant sum of arrears and as an additional ground for cancellation (article 1971 C.c.Q.), alleged that the tenant’s penchant for late payment was seriously prejudicial to its finances.

[3]         The decision informs us further that Judge Dufort was also seized of the tenant’s “Motion” – signed on March 15, 2022 and received by the Tribunal via email on March 17, 2022 - to dismiss the landlord’s claims on the ground, inter alia, of non adimpleti contractus pursuant to article 1591 C.c.Q.

[4]         After hearing the parties, Judge Dufort cancelled the lease, ordered the tenant expelled and awarded the landlord arrears in the sum of $5,985 with interest, indemnity (article 1619 C.c.Q.) and judicial costs. He also ordered the provisional execution of his expulsion order notwithstanding appeal.

[5]         At the same time, Judge Dufort dismissed the tenant’s Motion to dismiss the landlord’s application.

[6]         The tenant’s recourse to revocation is grounded on article 89 of an Act Respecting the Administrative Housing Tribunal.

« 89. Where a decision has been rendered against a party who was prevented from producing or supplying evidence by surprise, by fraud or by any other reason considered sufficient, that party may apply for the revocation of the decision.

A party may also apply for the revocation of the decision where the Tribunal has omitted to adjudicate upon part of the application or has decided beyond the application.

The application for revocation must be made in writing within ten days after the decision is known or from the time the cause of prevention ceases, as the case may be.

The application for revocation suspends the execution of the decision and interrupts the time allowed for appeal or review until the parties are notified of the decision.

It is not possible for a party who fails to inform the Tribunal or the other parties of a change of address in accordance with section 60.1 to apply for the revocation of a decision rendered against him by claiming not to have received the notice convening the party if the notice was sent to his previous address. »

[7]         The foregoing text informs that the revocation remedy is open to litigants who can prove, by preponderance, that they were denied their proverbial “day in court” through no fault of their own.

[8]         In his application to have the Dufort decision revoked, Mr. Nwabue maintains that the “Lessor, through Forgery, Proceeded with Application 607984, Obtaining the Judgment by Fraud and Surprise.”  (sic)

[9]         In the presence of the undersigned judge, Mr. Nwabue suggested that the landlord’s mandatary and Judge Dufort had worked in concert to deny him his rights.

[10]     The less said about this preposterous allegation the better.

[11]     Furthermore, in his studiously motivated decision of FIFTY-THREE (53) paragraphs, Judge Dufort concluded, with reason, that the tenant’s disgruntlement with the state of his dwelling – the Motion of March 15, 2022 makes mention of bedbugs and roaches – did not entitle him to refrain from paying the rent over a protracted period. He also pointed out, once more with reason, that if the tenant believed that his dwelling was unfit for habitation and that he was entitled to relief in the form of damages, rent reductions and specific performance orders, it was incumbent upon him to seek that relief within the framework of his own, distinct application.

[12]     That said, the decision reveals that despite the procedural irregularities that bedevilled the tenant’s Motion to Dismiss, Judge Dufort listened to Mr. Nwabue’s testimony with regard to the bedbugs and roaches but concluded that he (Nwabue) had failed to make preponderant proof of the alleged infestation and the concomitant inhabitable state of the dwelling.

[13]     Nor did Judge Dufort find any evidence in support of the notion that the landlord had somehow defrauded the tenant.

[14]     Suffice it to say that not a scintilla of probative evidence, whether with regard to forgery or fraud, was adduced before the undersigned.

[15]     Moreover, if the tenant truly believes that Judge Dufort somehow contravened the rules of natural justice or committed manifest errors of fact or law, he will have to raise these matters in the appropriate judicial forum.

[16]     In closing, the undersigned learned, at the revocation hearing, that on May 19, 2022, the tenant filed an application in the File no. 633428 wherein he seeks some, if not all, of the conclusions that he delineated in his Motion to Dismiss. As it happened, the Administrative judge, Isabelle Hébert was seized of this case on July 18, 2022 and adjourned the hearing. No one appears to have made mention of the Dufort decision and the undersigned will defer to her ability to evaluate its pertinence in the context of the case with which she is seized.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE TRIBUNAL:

[17]     DISMISSES the tenant’s application.