The lessee seeks:

• resiliation of the lease
• $383 for material damages
• $2,680 representing the rent paid for September to December 2018

(monthly rent is $670)

The Régie:

• dismisses the lessee’s application because her consent was not vitiated by fraud on the part of the lessor at the time of signing the lease

The lessee was fully informed of the electricity costs paid by the previous lessees.

The lessor informed her of the factors that could have an effect on the overconsumption of energy.

The information sent at that time was relevant and decisive.

The lessee’s lifestyle is partly responsible for the costs incurred; she left the windows open during the cold season to air out the dwelling.

Blanchard c. Poirier (July 11, 2019)

The lessor requests that the lessee perform his obligation to take out liability insurance.

The lessee must take out a liability insurance policy and provide the lessor with proof of this insurance.

The clause of the by-law requiring the lessor to hold liability insurance cannot be declared illegal.

The lessee had a duty, when he signed the agreement requiring him to take out an insurance policy, to do research in order to make an informed decision to enter into a lease.

The lessee was not misled or deceived by the lessor at the time of entering into the lease.

9355-9706 Québec inc. c. Kwart Owusu (December 17, 2019)

The lessor applies for:

• resiliation of the lease
• recovery of rent

The lease is resiliated and the Tribunal awards the lessor:

• $16,000 in unpaid rent

The Bills of Exchange Act does not apply to electronic transfers. Instead, reference should be made to the general rules of evidence set out in the Civil Code of Québec regarding payments, in particular article 1564 C.C.Q.

The lessee has the burden of establishing the payment of rent.

The lessee has not provided any evidence confirming that the lessor accepted his bank transfers. Therefore, the validity of his electronic payment has not been established.

Lee c. Choko (August 19, 2020)

The lessees apply for:

• rent reduction
• for an order forcing the lessor to provide the professional services of registered nurses at all times

(the monthly cost of services offered to the lessees is $813)

The Tribunal:

• orders the lessor to provide the professional services of registered nurses to the lessees at all times until the lease is modified to lawfully remove this service in accordance with legislative provisions
• condemns the lessor to pay $2,800 in rent reduction
• grants a monthly rent reduction of $300 as of February 1, 2020, and for future rent payments, until nursing services are provided to the lessees

The notice of modification of the lease does not specify that nursing care will no longer be provided by registered nurses.

The annual meeting of lessees cannot constitute a notice of modification of the lease.

The lease was therefore renewed with the same services as those set out in the previous lease.

Patoine c. Domaine Parc des braves* (September 3, 2020)

* Discontinuance of application for leave to appeal (C.Q., 2020-09-03) 200-80-009811-207.

The lessees apply for:

• 50% rent reduction as of August 1, 2015, due to the state of the windows and the balcony door
• an additional 10% reduction as of February 15, 2017, for the loss of caretaker services

The Tribunal awards the lessees:

• 10% rent reduction as of August 1, 2015, until the lessor replaces the windows and patio door of their dwelling
• 3% rent reduction as of February 15, 2017, until the services of a resident caretaker are re-established in the immovable

A formal notice is not necessary when it is obvious that the lessor is fully aware of the lessees’ grievances.

The malfunctioning of all the windows in the dwelling leads to an actual loss in the rental value and full enjoyment of the leased premises.

Since the departure of the resident caretaker from the immovable, the quality of caretaker services has decreased.

To restore the balance between the parties’ prestations where there is a substantial decrease in service and not loss of service, the Tribunal grants a rent reduction.

Dumont c. Gestion Forest Hill inc. (April 3, 2020)

Application for leave to appeal dismissed (September 10, 2020)

The lessors claim:

• Recovery of rent
• $1,965 representing three months’ re-rental indemnity
• $407 in damages

(monthly rent is $655)

The Tribunal awards the lessors:

• $2,046 in unpaid rent and for re-rental expenses

The Tribunal dismisses the application against the guarantors.

The by-laws of the immovable must contain rules for the enjoyment, use, and maintenance of the dwellings and of the common premises.

The solidarity clause included in the by-laws of the immovable, which is incorporated into the lease, cannot be considered as being expressly stipulated within the meaning of article 1525 of the Civil Code of Québec since the lessees did not affix their initials next to it.

The initial lease does not state that the guarantors agreed to a term that extends beyond the initial lease (art. 1881 C.C.Q.). Consequently, the guarantors cannot be held liable for amounts claimed by the lessor.

Laurendeau c. Chevrillier (October 13, 2020)

The lessees apply for:

• resiliation of the lease
• reimbursement of rent for July and August 2019
• $1,000 in damages
• $3,500 in moral damages

(monthly rent is $1,500)

The lease is resiliated and the Tribunal awards the lessees:

• $1,000 in rent reduction
• $100 in damages due to the uncleanliness of the dwelling upon its delivery
• $816 for their moving expenses
• $500 in moral damages

The lessor did not respect its obligation to deliver the dwelling in a clean condition.

The lessor knew or should have known that there were rodents in the leased house. There is no other explanation for the high presence of excrement when the lessees took possession of the premises.

The lessees’ consent at the signing of the lease was vitiated by the lessor’s failure to adequately inform them of the prior presence of rodents, even if he had no malicious intent.

Ordonez c. Taranjit Lubana (October 14, 2020)

The lessee sought :

• an order that the new lessor respect the conditions of the lease and continue providing cable and Internet services.

The Tribunal granted the lessee’s application.

Even if there is no mention to that effect in the lease, the lessee clearly established that cable and Internet services were provided by the former lessor.

Provençal c. Imbert inc. (January 14, 2021)

The succession of the lessee applies for:

• annulment of the lease

The Tribunal declares the lease annulled.

When the lessee signed the lease, she had not yet been legally declared incapable. However, she had been diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease and was already showing signs of incapacity. The lessor, a residence for elderly people, was aware of this situation.

Since the lessee was a unilingual francophone, she was not able fully understand the terms of her commitment because she was presented with a lease drafted in English only.

Article 290 C.C.Q. allows for the annulment of the lease.

Succession de Arseneau c. Nalawatee Christendat (Rise & Shine Residence) (March 3, 2021)

The lessees applied for:

• specific performance of the lessor’s obligations
• moral damages ($2,500)

The Tribunal:

• ordered the lessor to accept rent payments by Interac e-transfer
• awarded the lessees $300 in moral damages

Under the heading [TRANSLATION] “Payment Method”, the lease binding the parties stated that the rent was payable by [TRANSLATION] “cheque”, [TRANSLATION] “cash”, or [TRANSLATION] “other”. The lessees started to pay their rent by Interac e-transfer when the COVID-19 pandemic began in March 2020 to comply with health directives. The lessor stopped accepting this payment method in July 2021.

The agreement between the parties changed the lease conditions so that the rent could be paid by Interac e-transfer. Without the lessees’ consent, the lessor could not end that agreement or require another payment method.

The lessees suffered stress and anxiety because of the dispute about the rent payment method. They are entitled to $300 for the moral prejudice suffered.

Deleuze c. Cimino (November 12, 2021)

The lessee applies for:

• $362 in recovery of rent

(monthly rent is $850)

The Tribunal dismisses the lessee’s application.

A clause in the lease provides that electricity costs are included in the rent and will be assumed by the lessor up to the amount of $200 a month ($2,400).

The clause is inoperative and without effect since it results in a variation of the rent during the term of the lease or provides for an adjustment of the rent according to the electricity used during the year, which contravenes arts. 1903, 1904, and 1906 of the Civil Code of Québec.

The rent must be determined in the lease and cannot depend on various factors. The lessor cannot demand reimbursement of electricity costs of over $2,400, because electricity must be considered to be entirely at the lessor’s expense.

Croteau c. Haché (March 14, 2022)

The lessee, who is incapable and represented by a mandatary, applies for:

• cancellation of the rent increase for services added to the lease
• the reimbursement of certain services billed by the lessor for unnecessary care
• $1,000 in moral damages
• $1,000 in punitive damages

(monthly base rent is $1,031; monthly cost of services is $1,935, including extra services)

The application is dismissed.

The Tribunal's jurisdiction must be limited to reviewing compliance with the provisions applicable to seniors’ residences (SR) and not include determining whether a medical procedure carried out was appropriate, timely, or useful, or whether medical care should have been provided more frequently or not.

The SR was entitled to reassess the lessee's needs under the terms of the lease and its schedules. It did so in accordance with the standards of good faith and cooperation.

All amounts collected by the SR were in accordance with the contractual commitments made by the mandatary and the benefits received by the lessee.

P. P. c. Résidences l'Eau-vive inc. (April 21, 2022)

The lessee applies for:

• the cancellation of a rent agreement

The Tribunal:

• cancels the agreement
• determines that the rent is $615 per month

The lessee, who has lived in the dwelling for 22 years, accepted the increase proposed by the former lessor, bringing his rent to $615 per month as of July 1, 2022. The building was then sold to the lessor.

The parties signed a new lease indicating a monthly rent of $1,000, with a promotional clause reducing it to $615 per month for the period between July 1, 2022, and June 30, 2023, on the condition that the rent be paid on the first day of each month.

The agreement does not respect the public order provisions on residential leasing and is therefore not valid. It was entered into outside the legal lease renewal period, without giving the lessee time to reflect. Furthermore, it allows the lessor to vary or increase the rent during the term of the lease or at its end.

The free-rent clause is in fact a penalty clause awarding damages to the lessor without it ever having to prove them, in the event the rent is paid late.

Duquette c. 9464-2121 Québec inc. (September 29, 2022)

The lessors apply for:

• fixing of rent
• changes to the lease to add the new immovable by-law

(monthly rent of $575)

The monthly rent is fixed at $576.

The $45 discount given to the lessee for the last five years for the use of a parking spot is now included in the rent. Removing this free benefit from the lessee will impose a double rent increase on her.

The lessors are authorized to modify the lease to add clauses from the by-law that are not contested by the lessee.

The following clauses are not authorized:

• the clause enabling the lessors to choose the conditions allowing them to refuse to let a lessee install a device such as a coal stove on the immovable’s land is discretionary and abusive;
• the clause prohibiting the hanging of any object that could be detrimental to the immovable’s appearance excessively restricts the permitted use of the dwelling, to the point of compromising the right to peaceful enjoyment of property;
• the clause imposing limits, conditions, and restrictions on the use of the parking lot, going so far as to determine what type of vehicle is allowed there, excessively restricts the allowed use of an accessory to the lease, to the point of compromising the lessee's right to the peaceful enjoyment of the property.

Forest c. Contreras (October 5, 2022)

The lessee applies for:

• fixing of rent

(monthly rent of $1,750, previous monthly rent of $1,200)

The monthly rent is fixed at $1,208.

Signing a lease agreement does not constitute a renunciation of the right to bring an action to fix the rent, even if clause G of the lease indicates the lowest rent paid in the 12 months preceding the term of the lease.

The previous lessee's rent, while lower than $550 per month, is not preferential rent within the meaning of the Regulation respecting the criteria for the fixing of rent.

The previous lessee is neither a relative of the lessor nor a person connected by marriage or a civil union, even if the lessor considers the lessee to be part of her family.

Offering support to a person by renting her a dwelling for preferential rent does not mean the lessor "supported" her within the meaning of s. 1 of the Regulation.

Chabbat c. Omari Tadlaoui (October 18, 2022)

In an application to have the rent fixed, the lessor seeks:

• the amendment of the by-law of the immovable to add certain clauses, including one obliging the lessee to hold a liability insurance policy

The application to amend the by-law is dismissed.

Permitting the lessor to add a clause to the by-law of the immovable creating a requirement for lessee insurance policies is tantamount to allowing a disguised rent increase, which is contrary to the law and the Regulation respecting the criteria for the fixing of rent.

Di Lillo c. Fekrache (October 19, 2022)

The lessee asks the Tribunal to recognize that the parking space she rents is part of the lease for her dwelling.

The application is granted.

The parties entered into a lease for a dwelling in July 2021, and a lease for a parking space in October of that year. The day she complained about mice and cockroaches in her dwelling, the lessee received a text message from the lessor informing her that she could no longer use the parking space.

The lessor could not unilaterally withdraw the use of the parking space from the lessee. The parking space has become an accessory to the lease, even though it is the subject of a distinct contract.

To withdraw use of the parking space, the lessor must use the lease modification mechanism set out in articles 1941 C.C.Q. et seq.

Gahlichi c. Gestion immobilière V3L (January 9, 2023)