租房买房买生意上iU91
查看: 205|回复: 1

与女艺术家思彤辩论的故事

  [复制链接]   [推荐给好友]
发表于 2019-4-3 11:13 | 显示全部楼层 |阅读模式
最近在跟朋友聚会的时候,听来一个租客赖房钱的故事。故事非常怪异奇葩,说来大家听听。

某年某月某日,一位青年女艺术家前往市中心新建豪华公寓租房,美其明曰“工作室”,女艺术家自我介绍自到加拿大后辗转多个城市想开创一片新的艺术创作世界。自称在多伦多被房东扫地出门,希望在蒙城有一个稳定的创业环境。

经过磋商,租房六个月,而就是这六个月而不是物业要求的一年,埋下了第一个由头。因为窗帘非女艺术家所喜,将安装公司拒绝门外,并指责房东贪婪、自私。由此拒绝付房租,并切断和房东的所有联系,不接电话、不回邮件。房东不得不去RentalBoard开案要求追讨房租并解除房约。

女艺术家随即反告,要求赔偿$$$$,诉状理由怪异奇葩,包括因为窗帘没有安装,导致其身体受损,因此需常年用药,房东需要赔偿;物业要求至少一年租约,房东签了六个月,因此租约违规,要求法庭取消租约并要求房东退还已交的房钱;房子位于市中心,噪音太大,需要赔偿,并且联络其他住户写信给市长、议员;由于无法开展业务,要求赔偿经济损失,同时因为领取了政府小生意班的补助,一并要求房东赔偿,号称要退回给政府。更搞笑的是,自己不付电费,给Hydro掐电了,四处投诉房东没能给她一个舒适的居住环境。
听完这个故事,觉得这位女艺术家与之前吵的沸沸扬扬的7天书签的一方有相关性,正巧原文作者思彤在3月2日发布主题贴 “孟晚舟被捕后,蒙城《七天》尹灵何在?”,由此与其展开讨论。该作者一方面站在及高的道德高度继续讨伐7天,堆砌了一堆莫名奇妙的理论,一方面对于其真实身份(Qiuling (first name), Chen (Lastname)/ 思彤)的质疑反复搪塞。在思彤问7天要求赔偿时,提及mailto:e-transferartforvirtue@aol.com,e-transferartforvirtue@aol.com,收件人Qiuling (first name), Chen (Last name)。 所谓的思彤是同一个人吗?(原文如下:理不辩不明,不就让你回答几个问题,你方思彤是不是ChenQiu Ling?如是,是不是在和房东打官司?很简单的问题,YES or NO。作为一个蒙城居民,每个人都有义务提醒房东不良租客吗?你在那扯了满世界的理由,圆不了自己画的圈)在多次追问下,思彤再次祭起法律大旗,以“语言侮辱造谣诽谤干涉个人隐私…”等理由进行自辩,一个半吊子水平的人拼凑一些法律术语忽悠忽悠,然而就是不回答提出的问题。

在送她两句话“欲正人先正己!己所不欲,勿施于人!”,并要求其提供真实姓名和联系地址以便送达律师信,这位思彤群友删帖闪人了。

有谁知道的她的下落吗?

 楼主| 发表于 2019-5-14 17:22 | 显示全部楼层
刚出差回来,见到思彤开的新贴,我回了个贴,这位思彤群友又删帖闪人了。

在她的新贴里总算可以证明她就是那个Qiu lin Chen。住了别人的房子,不付房钱,还反告房东。整天代表这个代表那个,臆想自己是正义的化身,法律总该遵守吧?不,加拿大“法律之烂,无以言表”。 没得说了…

纵观其在加拿大多年的生活史,还真是性格决定了命运。在她看来,都是别人的错,就她一个弱女子在前面冲锋陷阵,为国人争光。 她从来不反思自己,反要道德起诉其他人所谓的冷漠无情。按照法官给她的判决书所说,the author of her own misfortune.

根据她自己的阐述,我查了一下Rental Board公开的信息,法官已经作出了她败诉的判决,其中有些蛮有趣的观点。请点击如下连接:

http://citoyens.soquij.qc.ca/php ... _ipznrkwH5PKM1eqQAg

节选如下:
[27]   The tenant’s extravagant prose and the stridency of her tone are reflected in her correspondence as well.
[32]   In her capacity as plaintiff, it was incumbent upon the tenant to make preponderant proof of her allegations.
[33]   However, the evidence adduced over the course of three (3) hearings revealed that the landlord did nothing wrong.
[41]   For one thing, she was not a party to the Agreement that bound the landlord and his fellow owners. Hence, in keeping with the time honored civilist principle of “res inter alios acta”, the landlord’s contractual relationship with his co-owners was, to put it bluntly, none of her business.
[42]   Moreover, the landlord’s contravention caused the tenant not one iota of prejudice. No one told her that her occupancy of the unit was illicit and as it happened, the term was renewed to April 30, 2018. The tenant told the tribunal that she moved out on the 30th of January of that year.
[46]   Suffice it to say that people who choose to reside in a high rise building on one of the busiest thoroughfares in downtown Montreal cannot reasonably aspire to monastic tranquility.
[47]   The tenant insisted that the edifice had not been adequately soundproofed but the building manager, Mr. Allen, demonstrated, to the tribunal’s satisfaction that the decibel levels therein were well within the permissible limits of the City of Montreal’s noise by-law.
[48]   The tenant assailed the landlord for having failed to install window blinds, as promised, and said that as a result of the defective windows in her unit, she was exposed to harmful sun rays.  She insisted that this exposure had irrevocably damaged her eyes and in furtherance of this hypothesis, caused a subpoena to be sent to the ophthalmologist, Dr. Devinder Cheema.
[49]   In paragraphs 13, 14, 15 and 16 of his affidavit of February 19, 2019, Dr. Cheema informed the tribunal that:
13.     The patient stated in the discussion after her examination on September 22, 2017 that she felt the eye damage we found was caused by sun exposure in her apartment because the landlord did not put up window blinds;
14.     I stated, in the presence of a witness (Fatma Zaguia, a third year McGill University Ophthalmology resident who had examined the patient), that the blemishes on her  conjunctiva were not caused by this event but rather are caused by sun exposure outdoors and are formed after decades with aging, not short term exposures over the course of days, weeks, or months;
15      I stated these blemishes could get periodically inflamed, especially in the setting of dry eyes such as hers. I offered the treatment outlined in my answer to question E;
16      On January 28th, 2018, I called the patient to inform her that I could not provide expert  testimony to support her claim to the effect that the omission of window blinds caused permanent damage to her eyes, I told her there was no connection between the lack of  blinds and the sun damage to her eyes;
[50]   The tribunal is justifiably perplexed as to why the tenant wanted to compel the testimony of a physician who had already informed her that he could not subscribe to her notion of a causal nexus between her condition and the absence of blinds in her dwelling. Nor did the physician’s repudiation of her ill-informed theory enhance her credibility.
[51]   Contrary to the tenant’s pretention, there was nothing wrong with the windows in her dwelling. Mr. Allen testified at length about the quality of the glass that the manufacturer utilized and the tribunal found his explanation to be spontaneous and coherent.
[52]   Nor could the tribunal conclude that the landlord defaulted on his obligation to install blinds in the dwelling. On the contrary, the evidence reveals that the windows were duly measured and that blinds were ordered and awaited installation. As it happened however, the blinds were not to the tenant’s liking. Moreover, she insisted that her unit be furnished with blinds that were similar to those in a conference room in the building. The landlord was not the tenant’s interior decorator and could not be expected to comply with her esthetic exigencies.
[53]   Nor, once again, was the tribunal privy to evidence of threats, harassment or any other conduct that would justify the important monetary awards to which the tenant believes she is entitled.
[54]   On the contrary, the tenant appears to have been the author of her own misfortune.
[55]   She complained of a lack of heat in the dwelling but neglected to tell the tribunal that Hydro-Québec had cut off her electricity after she failed to pay her bills.
[56]   Moreover, a mise en demeure that was addressed to her by the attorneys of the Icone Condominium suggest that she was a disruptive force in the building. True, the content of the letter was, pursuant to the rule against hearsay evidence, inadmissible. However, the tribunal heard viva voce evidence to the effect that the tenant went from door to door in order to enlist the support of owners and tenants in her campaign against the purported deficiencies in the building.
[57]   Not surprisingly, conduct of this nature did not sit well with her landlord or the administrators of the building. Nor did she endear herself to these parties by gluing pieces of black paper to the windows in the unit. The tenant said that she covered the windows in this manner in order to shut out the harmful rays of the sun. However, she also said that these papers were, in fact, works of art that she had to put on display. Neither of these explanations justified her failure to use the dwelling with prudence and diligence.
[58]   In light of the foregoing, the tribunal will conclude that the tenant failed to discharge her burden of proof.
[62]   The landlord will be awarded additional damages in the amount of $788 and more specifically, his proven energy costs of $248 that the tenant failed to acquit plus $540 for the cost of removing the paper that the tenant had glued to the windows.
[63]   The other damages claimed by the landlord will be denied because they are unfounded in fact and/or in law.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE TRIBUNAL:
In the file of the landlord:
[64]   GRANTS the application in part;
[65]   CONDEMNS the tenant to pay to the landlord the sum of $11,188 with interest at the legal rate plus the indemnity pursuant to Article 1619 C.c.Q. calculated from April 27, 2018 plus judicial costs in the amount of $83;
[66]   DISMISSES the other claims in the application.
In the file of the tenant :
[67]   DISMISSES the application.
                  
         


Ross Robins

Present :        the landlord
the tenant
Date of hearing :                 September 28, 2018
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

本版积分规则

Copyright © 1999 - by Sinoquebec Media Inc. All Rights Reserved 未经许可不得摘抄  |  GMT-4, 2019-5-27 11:07 , Processed in 0.146281 second(s), 31 queries , Xcache On.