[1]      In his application of August 27, 2020, the tenant, Mr. Desrosiers, asks that his lease be “modified”. He asks that he be dispensed from paying rent altogether, or failing that, that his rent be reduced from October 1, 2020, going forward.

[2]      No mention is made of the quantum of the reduction to which the tenant believes he is entitled.

[3]      He maintains that his peaceable enjoyment of the leased dwelling has been denied. He also says that he failed to “produce” his application within the requisite delay because the landlord failed to respond to his complaints about a neighbor’s noisy dog.

[4]      The evidence reveals that the tenant and landlord are bound by a residential lease that began on July 1, 2020, and was meant to terminate on June 30, 2021. The term was tacitly renewed to June 30, 2022, with no increase of rent.

[5]      At the hearing, the landlord’s attorney raised a preliminary objection.

[6]      She maintained, with reason, that whereas the application had been signed and stamped on August 27, 2020, the tenant had failed to notify it to the landlord until April 1, 2021.

[7]      Consequently, she argued, Mr. Desrosier’s application is “périmée” and the file must be closed.

[8]      The landlord’s objection is grounded on article 56.2 of an Act Respecting the Administrative Housing Tribunal.

56.2. Proof of notification and a list of the exhibits in support of the application must be filed in the record of the Tribunal. The Tribunal may refuse to convene the parties to a hearing as long as those documents have not been filed.

If proof of notification is not filed within 45 days after the application is instituted, the application expires and the Tribunal closes the record.

This section does not prevent the Tribunal from convening the parties without delay where it considers it appropriate, in which case proof that the application was notified must be produced at the hearing under pain of dismissal of the application.

[9]      The foregoing text informs us that a plaintiff must notify (make service of) his application to the opposing party and file proof of that notification into the Record of the Tribunal, all within FORTY-FIVE (45) days from the day on which the application was filed.

[10]   Failing that, the application “expires” and the Tribunal “closes the record.”

[11]   In the French and hence, official version of 56.2 LTAL, the legislator uses the word “périmée” which, according to the Collins French-English dictionary, means “expired” or “out-of-date.”

[12]   The obligation that 56.2 LTAL imposes on applicants is not simply a procedural technicality. Rather, it aims to ensure that an applicant takes his claims seriously and that the opposing party be informed of these claims with the requisite celerity in order that he may prepare his defense accordingly.

[13]   While it is true that article 59 LTAL allows the tribunal to extend a statutory time limit for “reasonable cause”, Mr. Desrosier’s contention that he was prevented from complying with the requirements of 56.2 LTAL on account of the landlord’s purported indifference to a barking dog is neither reasonable nor plausible.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE TRIBUNAL :

[14]   MAINTAINS the landlord’s preliminary objection;

[15]   DECLARES that the tenant’s application of August 27, 2020 is “périmée” and ORDERS the file closed.