[1]         La plupart des demandes de résiliation de bail et de recouvrement de loyer (1971 C.c.Q.) sont simples et faciles à trancher.

[2]         Tel n'est pas le cas dans le présent dossier.

[3]         Le Tribunal reproduira, pour le bénéfice du lecteur, son ordonnance de sauvegarde (décision interlocutoire) du 17 janvier 2022.

« [1] On July 22, 2021, the corporate landlord, Groupe Raf Ray ("Raf Ray") filed an application wherein it seeks to cancel the lease of the tenant, Amadi Okoli ("Amadi") and to have him expelled from the dwelling.

[2] Raf Ray alleges that Amadi occupies Apartment 1 of its building in Lachine and that the parties are bound by a residential lease that began on April 1, 2021 and is meant to terminate on June 30, 2022.

[3] Raf Ray goes on to say that Amadi undertook to pay rent in the amount of $750 but failed to pay the rent for July of 2021. Hence, its request for the cancellation of the lease and the recovery of $750 with interest, indemnity, and costs.

[4] The application was signed by a certain Shariful Islam ("Shariful").

[5] On August 24, 2021, Shariful filed an amendment on behalf of Raf Ray. Here, he points to an error in the original application and alleges that Amadi actually occupies Apartment 2 as opposed to Apartment 1.

[6] Shariful and Amadi were in attendance when the parties were convened for proof and hearing.

[7] Shariful testified that Raf Ray had acquired the building from a certain Tofara Makoni ("Tofara") in May of 2021. He said that Amadi had failed to pay the rent for June ($750), July ($750), August ($750), September ($750) and October ($750) of 2021 and owed Raf Ray a total of $3,750.

[8] Shariful produced a lease that appears to have been signed by Tofara and Amadi on April 1, 2021. The lease says that the term will run from April 1, 2021 to March 1, 2022 for a monthly rent of $750.

[9] Amadi told the tribunal that the signature on the lease was not his. However, the point may be moot because according to the lease, the dwelling for which Tofara and Amadi contracted was Apartment 1. As we know, Raf Ray sued Islam for his alleged failure to pay the rent for Apartment 2.

[10] Amadi admitted that at one time, he occupied both apartments. He said that he currently lives in Apartment 2 and continues to keep items of furniture in Apartment 1.

[11] He denied that the rent for Apartment 2 is $750 per month and produced a lease that was signed on July 27, 2017. The contacting parties are the landlord, Horizon Lion Inc. ("Horizon") and the tenant, Amadi Okoli.

[12] Amadi said that Horizon was "his company."

[13] Two signatures appear on the lease. Both are Amadi's. He appears to have signed on behalf of Horizon (the landlord) and on his own behalf, qua tenant.

[14] The lease for Apartment 2 calls for a term of Seven (7) years that began on July 1, 2018 and is meant to run until June 30, 2025.

[15] It is this lease, says Amadi, that Raf Ray acquired when it purchased the building from Tofara in May of 2021. As such, he argues, he is obliged to pay no more than $500 per month. That may all be well and good but according to Shariful, Amadi paid no rent whatsoever for the months of June, July, August, and September of 2021.

[16] But there is more.

[17] If, as the evidence reveals, Tofara owned the building before she sold it to Raf Ray, how did it come to pass that Horizon had the requisite juridical interest with which to sign a contract of lease with Amadi in July of 2017?

[18] Amadi claims to have owned the building - he did not specify whether he owned it personally or whether it was owned by Horizon - but admitted that it had been purchased in the name of his wife, Linda Marcotte ("Linda"). He then went on to say that Tofara had been "his" tenant before she (Tofara) purchased the building from his wife Linda in 2016 or 2017.

[19] The parties may rest assured that the tribunal will ultimately get to the bottom of this imbroglio.

[20] However, in order to do so, it will order Raf Ray to bring, to the next hearing, a copy of the deed of sale whereby it acquired the building from Tofara Makoni in May of 2021.

[21] Moreover, it will order Amadi Okoli to bring, to the next hearing, the following documents: A detailed extract from the Registraire des Entreprises (sometimes referred to as the CIDREQ) with regard to the legal person known as Horizon Lion Inc; a copy of the deed of sale whereby either he (Amadi), and/or Horizon Lion Inc. and/or Linda Marcotte acquired the building bearing the civic address 15 Camille in Lachine; a copy of the deed of sale whereby either he (Amadi), and/or Horizon Lion Inc., and/or Linda Marcotte sold the building bearing the civic address 15 Camille in Lachine to Tofara Makoni and an Extract from the Land Register (also commonly known as the Index of Immovables) pertaining to the aforementioned property and finally, a copy in his possession of any residential leases between Amadi Okoli and/or Horizon Lion Inc. and/or Linda Marcotte and Tofara Makoni.

[22] Furthermore, given that Amadi cannot expect to occupy the dwelling rent-free, he will be ordered to pay rent to Raf Ray in the amount of $500 on the first day of each month pending the next hearing of this case, the whole without prejudice to the landlord's claims.

[23] The tribunal will also confirm that Amadi remitted to Shariful the amount of $1,000 in cash at the last hearing.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE TRIBUNAL:

[24] ADJOURNS the hearing and CALLS UPON the Master of the Rolls to schedule a new date of hearing and to allocate 120 minutes for proof and argument;

[25] ORDERS the tenant, Amadi Okoli, to pay to the landlord, Groupe Raf Ray, rent in the amount of $500 on the first day of each month pending the next hearing of this case, the whole without prejudice to the landlord's right to make proof of its claims;

[26] ORDERS the landlord, Groupe Raf Ray, to produce, at the next hearing, a copy of the notarized Deed of Sale and the annexes thereto, evidencing its acquisition of the property situated at 15 Camille in Lachine, Quebec, from Tofara Makoni;

[27] ORDERS the tenant, Amadi Okoli to bring, to the next hearing, the following documents:

A detailed extract from the Registraire des Entreprises with regard to the legal person known as Horizon Lion Inc;

A copy of the notarized Deed of Sale and the annexes thereto evidencing the acquisition by Amadi Okoli and/or Horizon Lion Inc. and/or Linda Marcotte of the property situated at 15 Camille in Lachine, Quebec;

A copy of the Deed of Sale and the annexes thereto evidencing the sale of the property situated at 15 Camille in Lachine, Quebec, by Amadi Okoli and /or Horizon Lion Inc. and/or Linda Marcotte to Tofara Makoni.

An extract from the Land Register (Index of Immovables) with regard to any and all entries involving Amadi Okoli, Horizon Lion Inc. or Linda Marcotte pertaining to the immovable property bearing the civic address 15 Camille in Lachine, Quebec;

Copies of any and all residential leases between Tofara Makoni and Amadi Okoli and/or Horizon Lion Inc. and /or Linda Marcotte for any of the dwellings situated at 15 Camille in Lachine, Quebec.

[28] TAKES ACTE of the tenant's payment, in cash, to the landlord in the amount of $1,000. »

[4]         Lors de la reprise de l’audience le 17 mai 2023, le locataire soutient qu'il n'a pas reçu copie de la décision du 17 janvier 2022.

[5]         Le Tribunal a répondu à cette allégation avec le scepticisme requis. Néanmoins, le locataire s'est conformé à l'ordre de payer 500 $ par mois dans l'attente d'une décision finale. Par conséquent, le Tribunal lui a accordé le bénéfice du doute et a ajourné l'audience. (Voir le procès-verbal de l'audience du 17 juin 2023).

[6]         Lorsque les parties ont été convoquées à nouveau le 28 mars 2024, le locataire a maintenu qu'il était trop malade pour continuer. Il semblait suffisamment robuste, mais comme l'atteste le procès-verbal de l'audience, le Tribunal s'en est remis à la règle de l'Audi Alteram Partem et a choisi d'ajourner l'audience une fois de plus.

[7]         Toutefois, avant d'ajourner l'affaire, le Tribunal a pris connaissance d'une preuve concernant un problème de sécurité publique.

[8]         Le locateur a prouvé, par prépondérance, que le locataire utilise le sous-sol de l'immeuble comme lieu de stockage illicite et ad hoc. Des meubles, des vélos, des valises, des boîtes et divers objets ont été entassés du sol au plafond.

[9]         Il y a des tuyaux dans le sous-sol et le Tribunal n'a pas besoin de la perspicacité d'un plombier ou d'un pompier pour conclure que l'encombrement susmentionné peut constituer un danger.

[10]     Le Tribunal n'hésitera pas à rendre une ordonnance de sauvegarde appropriée en attendant la prochaine audience.

POUR CES MOTIFS, LE TRIBUNAL :

[11]     AJOURNE l'audience ;

[12]     ORDONNE que la prochaine audience soit fixée, à titre péremptoire, à l'encontre du locataire ;

[13]     ORDONNE au locataire, dans un délai de TRENTE (30) jours à compter de la date de la présente décision, de retirer, dans leur intégralité, ses biens du sous-sol de l'immeuble.