[1]         Two files have been joined for common proof and hearing.

[2]         In its application of December 29, 2021 – amended on March 16, 2022 – the landlord maintains that the tenant’s rent is in arrears for a period that exceeds three weeks and that he currently owes $6,405.

[3]         Hence, its request for the cancellation of the lease (article 1971 C.c.Q.), the concomitant expulsion of the tenant and the recovery of the aforementioned sum as well as additional rent owed on the date of the hearing, the whole with interest, indemnity (article 1619 C.c.Q.) and judicial costs.

[4]         As an additional ground of cancellation, the landlord alleges that the rent is frequently paid late and that the tenant’s tardiness is seriously prejudicial to its finances.

[5]         The landlord also asks to be awarded material damages in the amount of $632.36 for repairs to the dwelling’s front door.

[6]         The tenant filed his own application on February 23, 2022.

[7]         He assails the landlord for its failure to provide him with a secure door to the dwelling over the course of six months and requests a rent reduction of 80% from September of 2021 to February of 2022. He says that the landlord knew full well that his two passports had been stolen yet did nothing to palliate his anxiety.

[8]         Apart from rent reduction, the tenant asked that the lease be cancelled in his favor as of March 15, 2022. The application was laconically drafted but it is assumed that the tenant wanted the tribunal to conclude that the absence of a secure door had rendered the dwelling unfit for habitation pursuant to article 1913 C.c.Q.

[9]         The tenant asked for his judicial costs but the application made no mention of interest or indemnity.

[10]     What does the pertinent evidence reveal?

[11]     The parties were bound by a residential lease that was meant to run from July 1, 2020 to June 30, 2022 at a monthly rent of $915.

[12]     The landlord proved, by preponderance, that the tenant had failed to pay the rent for November ($515) and December ($915) of 2021. Nor had he paid the rent for the months of January ($915), February ($915), March ($915) and April ($915) of 2022.

[13]     The foregoing arrears totaled $5,090 and would most assuredly have justified the cancellation of the lease pursuant to article 1971 C.c.Q.

[14]     However, as the hearing drew to a close, the parties agreed that the tenant would vacate the dwelling on April 17, 2022 and that the landlord would expect no rent for the months of May and June 2022.

[15]     That said, the landlord did not withdraw its claim for arrears and material damages and the tenant did not eschew his claim for a significant rent reduction.

[16]     In support of its claim of $632.36 in material damages, the landlord produced an invoice for the replacement of the tenant’s front door on February 9, 2022.

[17]     The representative explained that a fire broke out in the building on Dupuis Avenue in September of 2021. Unbeknownst to the landlord, the tenant had changed the lock to his front door but neglected to provide the landlord with a copy of the key. Consequently, the fire fighters had no choice but to break down the door in order to gain access to the dwelling. The tenant denied having changed the lock, but the tribunal will take judicial notice that firemen do not forcibly gain access to a dwelling unless they have no other option. Moreover, over the course of his testimony, the tenant insisted that his neighborhood was unsafe and in so doing, lent credence to the landlord’s hypothesis that he had changed the lock to enhance his brittle sense of security.

[18]     The landlord will be awarded its proven material damages as well as the arrears for November ($515) and December of 2021 plus the arrears for January, February and March of 2022 for a total of $4,807.36 ($632.36 + $4 175).

[19]     It now remains to be seen if the foregoing debt has been offset, whether in whole or in part, by the rent reduction claimed by the tenant.

[20]     The tenant proved, by preponderance, that from September of 2021 to early February of 2022, he had to make do with a makeshift door that was secured, on the outside, by a rudimentary lock that one is likely to see on a gym locker.

[21]     Before the fire broke out in September of 2021, the tenant changed the lock to his door and neglected to provide the landlord with a copy of the key. His failure to do so was irresponsible and constituted a want of compliance with his statutory obligation to use the dwelling with prudence and diligence. (Article 1844 C.c.Q.)

[22]     However, it is no less true that the landlord was bound to provide the tenant with the peaceable enjoyment of his dwelling over the entire course of the lease, the whole pursuant to article 1854 C.c.Q.  Peaceable enjoyment includes, inter alia, a reasonable sense of security to which every tenant is entitled.

[23]     While the landlord is entitled to the material damages engendered by the tenant’s negligence, it was incumbent upon it to replace the splintered door with a secure simulacrum within a reasonable delay.

[24]     The representative explained that the landlord’s insurer had insisted that it keep the temporary door in place pending further instructions. That is all well and good but unlike the landlord, the insurer is not bound to provide the tenant with peaceable enjoyment.

[25]     The tenant is entitled to a rent reduction, but the tribunal will conclude that the quantum of the reduction that he requests is exorbitant.

[26]     The representative argued that the temporary door did not undermine the tenant’s objective security. He said that the door could be bolted from inside the dwelling and that the building was outfitted with security cameras. Moreover, the cameras captured nothing unusual, apart from the stream of visitors that the tenant invited to his dwelling on a regular basis. The representative does not know how the tenant’s passports were pilfered. Neither does the tribunal.

[27]     The tenant explained that his guests came by to palliate his sense of vulnerability and said that his anxiety compelled him to sleep at the homes of friends four to five nights per week. He insisted that the neighborhood that encompasses Dupuis Avenue is unsafe and that his sense of insecurity was justified.

[28]     Dupuis Avenue is located in the Borough of Côte-des-Neiges. The tribunal will take judicial notice of the fact that Côte-des-Neiges is a diverse, multi-ethnic community replete with families, schools, houses of worship, grocery stores, restaurants, libraries, banks and booksellers. Many of the Borough’s residents are poor but that should not, ipso facto, lead us to conclude that when they venture forth from their apartments, they do so at their peril.

[29]     It is also instructive to note that the tenant makes his living as a taxi driver. It is safe to suggest that driving a taxi in a metropolis like Montreal is not for the faint of heart. Apart from traffic jams, detours, inconsiderate drivers, jaywalkers and scofflaw cyclists, every taxi driver is mindful of the possibility that a passenger who enters his vehicle may mean him harm. Ultimately, the tenant’s chances of being burglarized were far less than his chances of being abused or robbed by an ill-intentioned passenger.

[30]     In light of the foregoing, the tenant will be awarded a lump sum reduction in the amount of $800, calculated as follows: Approximately 15% per month for the months of September (in part), October, November and December of 2021 as well as January and February (in part) of 2022.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE TRIBUNAL:

In the file of the landlord (604538):

[31]     CONDEMNS the tenant to pay to the landlord the sum of $4,807 (rounded off from 4807.36) with interest at the legal rate plus the indemnity pursuant to article 1619 C.c.Q. calculated from March 16, 2022 plus judicial costs in the amount of $103;

In the file of the tenant (614280):

[32]     CONDEMNS the landlord to pay to the tenant the sum of $800 plus judicial costs in the amount of $103;

[33]     AUTHORIZES the parties to operate compensation so that the sums awarded to the tenant are deducted from the sums awarded to the landlord;

[34]     TAKES NOTICE of the parties agreement to cancel the lease as of April 17, 2022.