The lessee asks the Régie du logement to declare her lease assignment valid.

The lessor applies for:

• resiliation of the lease
• recovery of a portion of the unpaid rent for the month of May, i.e., $178

The Régie noted that the lease assignment was valid, but that it had become moot.

The lessee’s action for damages is reserved for the prejudice that she suffered due to the lessor’s unjustified refusal to consent to the assignment.

The lease was resiliated due to the lessor’s fault, retroactively to May 1, 2019.

The lessor may not refuse to consent to the assignment of a lease without a serious reason.

The lessor’s reasons must be based on the characteristics of the assignee (for e.g. ability to pay, insolvency or failure to comply with the obligations under the lease).

The lessor cannot circumvent the lessee’s right to assign his lease by offering to resiliate the contract instead.

It was up to the lessor to take reasonable steps to obtain all the necessary information in order to make her decision; the law provides that the lessee must provide the name and address of the potential assignee.

In this case, the lessor did not establish serious reasons to refuse the assignment.

Laflamme c. Gestion Reluc inc. (June 6, 2019)

The lessee applies for:

• resiliation of the lease
• damages

The lease is resiliated by the lessor’s fault retroactively to June 1, 2020, the date on which the assignment of the lease would have taken effect, had it not been for the lessor’s intervention to prevent it.

A credit report revealed that the person to whom the lessee wanted to assign the lease had good credit and had no criminal record or any file at the Régie du logement.

Among other reasons, the lessor refused this candidate because he did not want her to share the dwelling with others who would not have not have been his lessees.

The complete or partial subletting of the dwelling is legal and prohibiting it is against public order.

In addition, a lessee may share a dwelling with other occupants who are not signatories to the lease without subletting, even partially, his dwelling.

By acting as he did, the lessor therefore deprived the lessee of her right to assign the lease.

Wilson c. Hamnawa (October 1, 2020)

The lessor sought :

• to have the lease resiliated

The application was dismissed.

The right to maintain occupancy in the premises is a personal right and the liquidator of the deceased lessee’s succession cannot assign the lease.

Even if the lessee is found to have committed a fault, the lessor did not establish that she was seriously prejudiced by the fact that the succession allowed a third party to occupy the premises without her knowledge, and then attempted to assign the lease to that person without right.

9103-2037 Québec inc. c. Succession de Robitaille (November 27, 2020)

The lessors seek from the lessees and the guarantor :

• $3,200 in material damages
• $5,000 in moral damages

The Tribunal :

• Dismissed the lessors’ application
• Declined jurisdiction over the claim based on extracontractual faults allegedly committed by the sublessee

The lessors are third parties with respect to the sublease agreement entered into between the lessees and the sublessee.

The lessees cannot be held responsible for the lost rent for the month of July 2019. Their responsibility ended on June 30, when the lease ended.

At that point, it is the sublessee, and only the sublessee, who committed a fault by remaining in the apartment and who should have been sued by the lessors.

Longpré c. Allard (January 12, 2021)

The lessor applies for:

• resiliation of the lease or an order prohibiting any subleasing
• $11 in damages
• $3,000 in moral damages

The Tribunal grants the lessor:

• $11 in damages

The lessee had successively found three sublessees interested in temporary residential occupancy for a few months.

The lessor did not suffer serious harm as a result of the sublessees’ occupation of the leased premises before the lessor accepted or refused their presence.

The order sought by the lessor to prohibit subleasing is contrary to the law since the lessee’s right to sublease or assign the lease is of public order.

The lessor is entitled to the reasonable investigation costs related to one of the requests to sublease.

Gestion SCCM c. Hartog (January 18, 2021)

The lessor appeals:

• a decision by the Régie du logement, which declared a clause in the building’s by-laws prohibiting the assignment of the lease to be without effect

The lessor’s appeal is allowed.

The lessor provides social housing to vulnerable clients. It is a non-profit organization with a social mission, and it has a policy for the allocation of housing and special circumstances.

For such an organization, compliance with its mission and selection processes may constitute a “serious reason” for refusing to consent to the assignment of the lease.

Espace La Traversée c. Desrochers (July 6, 2021)

The lessee asks the Tribunal to rule on the validity of the assignment of a lease.

The Tribunal declares that the lease assignment is valid.

The rules in cases involving lease assignments, which are set out in articles 1870 and 1871 of the Civil Code of Québec (C.C.Q.), are mandatory because they are of public order.

The lessee gave the lessor notice of assignment as required in article 1870 C.C.Q. Once the lessor received the notice, she could not refuse to consent to the assignment without a serious reason.

The lessor's refusal is based solely on her intention to complete work in the dwelling, which is not a reason that can prevent the lessee from assigning her lease. Deciding otherwise would be tantamount to allowing her to circumvent the rules of public order governing residential leases, specifically the right conferred on the lessee to assign the lease instead of resiliating it.

Garon c. Stathopoulos (November 3, 2021)

The lessees ask the Tribunal to rule on the validity of the lease assignment.

The Tribunal declares that the lease assignment is valid.

The clause in the lease whereby any sublease or assignment of the lease must first be made in favour of the lessor is illegal.

Articles 1870 and 1871 of the Civil Code of Québec are of public order. The legislator wished to protect lessees against unfounded refusals, and they may not renounce this protection in advance (i.e., when signing the lease) because they are in a position of vulnerability at that time.

The lessors' refusal of the assignment is unjustified and not based on a serious reason.

Carpentier c. Corbishley (November 25, 2021)

The lessor appeals:

• a decision by the Tribunal administratif du logement, which declared invalid a notice of non-renewal of the lease.

The lessor’s appeal is dismissed.

The notice of non-renewal sent by the lessor because the lessee subleased the dwelling for more than 12 months is invalid.

The lessee is entitled by operation of law to the renewal of the lease despite subleasing for over 12 months since he continued to occupy his dwelling on a regular or occasional basis.

The distinction between a full and partial sublease is not a determining factor in the application of art. 1944 of the Civil Code of Québec (C.C.Q.). Rather, it is the nature and frequency of the occupancy of the dwelling by the principal lessee during the 12 months of the sublease that is decisive.

This interpretation of art. 1944 C.C.Q. favours the lessee's right to remain in the rented premises and to the renewal of the lease, given the socio-economic crisis related to the housing shortage.

Levac c. Poirier (May 4, 2022)

The lessor seeks:

• resiliation of the lease due to the change in destination of the dwelling

The application is dismissed.

The lessee placed an ad on Airbnb to sublease his dwelling for long periods when he planned to be travelling abroad.

There is nothing preventing the lessee from using Airbnb to find sublessors, and the mere listing of the dwelling on the platform is not sufficient to prove rental for tourism or commercial purposes.

The lessor did not establish that the lessee changed the destination of the dwelling, as it is still used for residential purposes.

Viau c. Chalifoux (January 10, 2023)