发表于 2019-5-14 16:22
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.
http://citoyens.soquij.qc.ca/php ... _ipznrkwH5PKM1eqQAg
 The tenant’s extravagant prose and the stridency of her tone are reflected in her correspondence as well.
 In her capacity as plaintiff, it was incumbent upon the tenant to make preponderant proof of her allegations.
 However, the evidence adduced over the course of three (3) hearings revealed that the landlord did nothing wrong.
 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.
 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.
 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.
 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.
 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.
 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;
 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.
 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.
 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.
 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.
 On the contrary, the tenant appears to have been the author of her own misfortune.
 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.
 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.
 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.
 In light of the foregoing, the tribunal will conclude that the tenant failed to discharge her burden of proof.
 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.
 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:
 GRANTS the application in part;
 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;
 DISMISSES the other claims in the application.
In the file of the tenant :
 DISMISSES the application.
Present : the landlord
Date of hearing : September 28, 2018