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 (27 novembre 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 (12 janvier 2021)

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 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)