Application under art. 107 of the Cannabis Regulation Act.

The current lease cannot be amended to include a clause prohibiting smoking cannabis in the dwelling.

The lessee has proved that her refusal to amend the lease is justified on medical grounds.

The production of a medical prescription certifying that cannabis is an appropriate treatment for a lessee's conditioin is not required by the Cannabis Regulation Act.

Respect for privacy.

Balance between the right to remain in the premises and the objectives covered by the Cannabis Regulation Act.

Gestion immobilière Langlois inc. c. Brodeur (March 7, 2019)

Lessee seeks:

• 20% rent reduction
• $1,000 in moral damages
• that the lessor provides him with the peaceful enjoyment of his dwelling

(subsidized monthly rent is $210)

Application is dismissed.

The odours of cannabis were not so persistent, unpleasant or unbearable as to permanently inconvenience the lessee (no proof of excessive and unreasonable disturbance).

Moula c. Habitations communautaires Loggia (December 19, 2018)

Application under art. 107 of the Cannabis Regulation Act.

The current lease cannot be amended to include a clause prohibiting smoking cannabis in the dwelling.

The lessee has an order authorizing her to use cannabis for medical purposes.

The lessee may have her lease resiliated if this use causes serious prejudice.

Cannabis use by a lessee is not protected by privacy rights.

Immeubles Yelena inc. c. Windsor* (January 10, 2019)

* Application for review

Application under art. 107 of the Cannabis Regulation Act.

The current lease is amended to add the following clause:

"It is strictly forbidden to consume cannabis by inhalation (to smoke cannabis). The definition of smoking also includes the use of a pipe, bong, electronic cigarette or any other such device. This prohibition applies to the internal and external areas of the property, the land, balconies, patios and common areas."

The Cannabis Regulation Act prohibits smoking cannabis in several places.

A lessor may or may not prohibit smoking cannabis in the dwelling rented by his or her lessees.

Before making this decision, the lessor must take into accout:

• the respective enjoyment of the other lessees with regard to their dwelling
• the possibility that there may be children in the vicinity
• any other personal reason

Aguilar c. Hébert (December 21, 2018)

The lessor seeks:

• resiliation of the lease

The lease is resiliated.

Cannabis odours from the lessee's dwelling are persistent and disturbing.

Even though the lessee's use of cannabis is legal, the occupants of the building suffer serious inconvenience.

The lessee receives many people in her dwelling, which causes constant comings and goings and a lot of noise.

Mauro c. Lord (December 6, 2018)

Application under art. 107 of the Cannabis Regulation Act.

The lessee's two leases were modified to add a clause prohibiting the smoking of cannabis in the dwelling, which includes the building's backyard.

The lessee has not proved that his refusal to modify the lease is justified on medical reasons.

The lessee has access to the use of the building's backyard, which is closely connected to the dwelling.

This yard is an accessory to the dwelling.

Ricard c. Drolet (March 15, 2019)

Application under art. 107 of the Cannabis Regulation Act.

The lease is modified to prohibit the smoking of cannabis in the dwelling.

The lessee may refuse the modification for medical reasons.

The lessee smokes cannabis for pain after physical effort, in addition to using anti-inflammatory drugs and cold applications.

This is self-medication.

The lessee’s state of health must be confirmed in a document issued by a health practitioner.

The lessee has not provided any medical opinion, prescription, or other document from a health professional. Article 12 of the Cannabis Regulation Act already prohibits smoking in the common areas of residential buildings comprising two or more dwellings.

The lease may not be modified to prohibit the growing of cannabis because art. 107 of the Cannabis Regulation Act refers only to the smoking prohibition.

Vertus c. Robinson (April 17, 2019)

Application under art. 107 of the Cannabis Regulation Act.

The lease is modified to prohibit the lessee from smoking cannabis in the dwelling.

The lessee may not rely on the medical condition of her spouse, whose name is not on the lease, to refuse the modification proposed by the lessor.

R&H Management 2011 Inc. c. Lemieux (March 25, 2019)

The lessor applies for:

• resiliation of the lease

The lease is resiliated.

Even if the consumption of cannabis is permitted by the Cannabis Regulation Act, or even if it is medically prescribed, the consumer must not cause harm to his or her neighbours (art. 976 C.C.Q.).

The occupant of the dwelling smokes cannabis, and this characteristic odour, which many consider nauseating, invades the dwelling and then enters the corridors and neighbouring dwellings.

By refusing any other form of cannabis consumption, the lessee’s son is disturbing the normal enjoyment of the premises to which the other lessees are entitled.

The inconvenience suffered by the lessee’s neighbours are significant, persistent and recurring.

Résidence de la Tour Westmount ltée c. Goldenblatt (May 23, 2019)

Application under art. 107 of the Cannabis Regulation Act.

The lease is modified.

The tribunal does not have to rule on the legitimacy of the modification or on the impact or disturbance caused to other occupants of the building by the use of cannabis.

The lessee’s state of health must be confirmed in a document issued by a health practitioner.

The lessee did not file a medical opinion, a prescription, an order, or any other document prepared by a health professional.

Vertus c. Robinson (April 17, 2019)

Application under art. 107 of the Cannabis Regulation Act.

The current lease cannot be modified to add a clause prohibiting the smoking of cannabis in the dwelling.

Under art. 107 of the Cannabis Regulation Act, only a lessor of the lease of a dwelling can modify the conditions of the lease by adding a prohibition against smoking cannabis, which excludes the lessor of land intended for the installation of a mobile home.

9179-0212 Québec inc. c. Légaré* (July 25, 2019)

* Application for review is dismissed

Application to review the decision of the Régie du logement dismissing the lessor’s application to modify the current lease by adding a clause prohibiting the smoking of cannabis.

The application for review is dismissed.

To review the impugned decision, it must be established that the trial judge erred in fact or in law.

It is wrong to claim that there is uncertainty in the case law as to the notion of “medical reasons” set out in art. 107 of the Cannabis Regulation Act. The disputes were decided by taking into account the particular circumstances of each case, the evidence adduced, and the arguments presented.

Article 107 of the Act does not provide for the filing of any particular medical document.

The lessee consulted a physician for health problems, and the physician acknowledges that his patient is using cannabis as treatment to help relieve her pain.

Therefore, the trial judge did not err in not requiring more explicit medical evidence.

Gestion Immobilière Langlois inc. c. Brodeur (November 12, 2019)

The lessee applies for:

• a rent reduction
• $1,382 in material damages (moving expenses)
• $10,000 in moral damages
• $5,000 in punitive damages

(monthly rent is $600)

The Tribunal awards the lessee:

• a 50% rent reduction as of the date of the formal notice
• $1,000 in moral damages
• $1,382 $ for moving expenses

The lessee informed the lessor of the constant and recurring presence of smoke and the smell of cigarettes and cannabis coming from the unit below hers. When she saw the lessor’s inaction and her health deteriorating, she left the unit at the end of the lease.

The lessor was required to enforce the clause in the lease prohibiting lessees from smoking cigarettes, cannabis, or any other substance in their unit. The lessor was negligent in failing to take steps to remedy the situation, thereby interfering with the lessee's right to enjoy the leased premises and causing her serious harm.

Bastien c. Cantin (September 2, 2022)

The lessor applies for:

• resiliation of the lease
• an order forcing the lessee and the occupants of the dwelling to comply with the clauses of the lease

(monthly rent is $649)

The lessor’s application is dismissed.

The lease contains a prohibition against consuming cannabis throughout the building, including balconies and parking lots.

The lessor alleges that she has been receiving several complaints from lessees about cannabis smell for several years, while the lessee and her son maintain that he had stopped consuming cannabis in the prohibited areas since their meeting about this matter in July 2022.

The versions are contradictory and, in this case, the lessor has not established to the Tribunal’s satisfaction that the lessee's son had failed to comply with the prohibition against consuming cannabis in the building, nor has there been proof of serious injury. She therefore failed to obtain the resiliation of the lease.

Bourdeau c. Pelletier (May 24, 2024)

The lessee applies for:

• an order from the Tribunal directing the lessor to comply with his lease, which authorizes him to smoke cannabis
• $5,000 in punitive damages

(monthly rent of $950)

The Tribunal awards the lessee:

• $5,000 in punitive damages

The lessee has been living in his dwelling since 2014. The lessor was warned that the lessee has a medical order to smoke cannabis to manage his back pain.

It was not until 2023, when a new property manager sent him numerous warnings concerning his cannabis consumption, that problems started.

The lessee does not have a vested right. However, he is entitled to receive reasonable accommodation due to his handicap. The consumption of cannabis is a means to palliate his handicap.

The lessor’s repeated actions to get the lessee to leave his dwelling, while an accommodation measure had previously been put in place to palliate his handicap, constitute harassment. Moreover, the lessor was negligent because it took no steps to prevent the property manager’s repeated interventions. It did not comply with its obligation to ensure that the lessee’s rights were not repeatedly infringed upon.

Rizkallah c. Akelius Montréal Ltd. (November 6, 2024)