[1]         In its application of September 21, 2022, the landlord requests the cancellation of the lease and the concomitant expulsion of the tenant.

[2]         Judicial costs are requested as well.

[3]         In support of its conclusions, the landlord alleges that the tenant has failed to use the dwelling with the prudence and diligence that article 1855 of the Civil Code of Quebec requires.

[4]         It maintains that her dwelling is unclean, inordinately cluttered and stinks of cat urine. It believes that the current state of the dwelling presents a fire hazard and fears for the safety of the tenant and that of her neighbors.

[5]         The parties are bound by a lease for a dwelling in the landlord’s multi-unit dwelling in Montreal.

[6]         The tenant pays a subsidized rent in the amount of $137 per month.

[7]         When the parties were first convened on June 21, 2023, the evidence to which the tribunal was privy revealed a dwelling in a lamentable state of disarray. Boxes and sundry objects abound in the hallway and elsewhere. Their presence is inimical to a hasty exit and it is fair to suggest that neither a Municipal Inspector nor a Fire Prevention Inspector would be pleased.

[8]         Time restraints called for an adjournment, but the foregoing evidence militated in favor of the following safeguard order:

« En attendant la prochaine audience, le Tribunal estime qu’une ordonnance de sauvegarde est nécessaire. Or, la locataire est ordonnée, dès maintenant, de s’assurer que la litière soit nettoyée quotidiennement, De plus, la locataire est ordonnée dans un délai de 30 jours d'enlever de la cuisine, des boîtes ou matériaux combustibles, c.a.d. des matériaux n'ayant aucune utilité pour la préparation des repas et finalement, de s'assurer que des passages et/ou corridors qui donnent accès aux portes soient propres et désencombrés. Cette ordonnance a été prononcée viva voce à l'audience et des copies seront expédiées aux procureurs par courriel. »

[9]         It is instructive to note that the tenant benefits from the tutelage and assistance of a health professional who specializes in the treatment of hoarding disorders.

[10]     When the parties were reconvened on August 14, 2023, photographs produced by the tenant enabled the tribunal to discern that some progress had been made.

[11]     However, the photographs that the landlord produced revealed that more work remains to be done. Piles of boxes have yet to be removed and sundry pieces of furniture and a variety of containers preclude easy access from one room to the next.

[12]     The tribunal learned that the building has no storage facilities. Such being the case, it was, and remains, incumbent upon the tenant to rent storage space elsewhere for the scores of belongings to which she appears to be emotionally attached.

[13]     No one is asking the tenant to maintain her dwelling in a manner that will attract the attention of magazines like “Better Homes and Gardens.”

[14]     Nevertheless, her obligation to use it with prudence and diligence requires that it be kept in a reasonably tidy state and that its contents do not impede safe access and/or egress.

[15]     The landlord’s insistence that the lease be cancelled is neither frivolous nor callous.

[16]     However, whenever the evidence suggests that an order pursuant to articles 1863 and 1973 C.c.Q. may prove fruitful, the tribunal should not be reticent to opt for the proverbial “last chance” that the text of 1973 C.c.Q.  allows.

1863. The nonperformance of an obligation by one of the parties entitles the other party to apply for, in addition to damages, specific performance of the obligation in cases which admit of it. He may apply for the resiliation of the lease where the nonperformance causes serious injury to him or, in the case of the lease of an immovable, to the other occupants.

The nonperformance also entitles the lessee to apply for a reduction of rent; where the court grants it, the lessor, upon remedying his default, is nonetheless entitled to the re-establishment of the rent for the future.

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.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE TRIBUNAL:

[17]     ORDERS the tenant, within a delay of THIRTY (30) days from the decision herein, to remove any and all boxes and other containers that are currently used for storage and restrict access to doors and passageways;

[18]     ORDERS the tenant, from the decision herein going forward, to maintain her dwelling in an uncluttered and reasonably clean condition over the entire term and a renewal thereof;

[19]     CONDEMNS the tenant to pay to the landlord its judicial costs in the amount of $107.