The lessees sought:

• $7,200 for the difference between the rents they had to pay for 1 year
• $1,103 for the costs to store their property
• $20,000 in moral damages
• $15,000 in punitive damages
• An order directing the lessor to cease all harassing behaviour

The lessor sought:

• $20,000 for bodily injury
• $15,000 in moral damages
• $15,000 in punitive damages

(monthly rent: $1,100)

The Tribunal awarded the lessees:

• $8,303 in damages
• $6,000 in moral damages
• $15,000 in punitive damages

The Tribunal dismissed:

• The lessees’ other applications
• The lessors’ applications

The lessor was authorized to repossess the lessees’ dwelling in order to house his daughter there, but he occupied it instead.

Repossession in bad faith does not fall under real estate speculation. Instead, it was a rash if not selfish decision by the lessor, who wanted to benefit from the entire premises.

Even though the Tribunal concluded that there was repossession in bad faith, this does not necessarily mean that there was harassment.

The parties’ respective proceedings were not abusive.

Rivard c. Thilloy (November 24, 2023)

The lessees sought:

• $2,500 in material damages
• $2,500 in moral damages
• $20,000 in punitive damages

(monthly rent: $1,070)

The Tribunal awarded the lessees:

• $7,000 in punitive damages

The lessor was authorized to repossess the lessees’ dwelling in order to reside there, but her cousin occupied it instead.

The lessees were forced to move into a smaller and more expensive dwelling located across from the repossessed dwelling, and to pay rent in both locations given the lessor’s refusal to move up the repossession date.

The lessees took photographs of the lessor’s building at various times, none of which (except for two of them) showed her car on the premises.

The lessor and her cousin gave contradictory testimony.

The lessor intentionally violated her lessees’ right to maintain occupancy.

She disguised the truth and tried to mislead the Tribunal. The award of $7,000 in punitive damages must serve as an example, not as compensation.

Cardinal c. Morand (December 14, 2023)

The lessor sought:

• Authorization to repossess the lessee’s dwelling in order to reside there

The lessee argued the non-compliance of the form submitted to repossess the dwelling.

The notice of repossession was valid even though the lessor used a different model, that is, a notice of “resiliation of a lease”.

The Tribunal dismissed the lessor’s application.

The form sent by the lessor included the legally prescribed essential information in dwelling repossession matters.

The lessee sent the lessor his refusal to leave the dwelling by using the “Response to a notice of repossession” form available on the Tribunal administratif du logement’s website, which establishes his understanding that the lessor wanted to repossess the dwelling, not to resiliate the lease.

The lessor, who resided in the dwelling on the second floor, stated that he wanted to repossess the lessee’s fourth-floor dwelling in order to use it as a kitchen for his family.

The lessee asserted that the lessor sent him a notice of repossession each time he contested a notice of rent increase.

The Tribunal questioned the lessor’s true intentions and the feasibility of the plan, concluding that it was instead a pretext.

Sinnathamby c. Darly (January 9, 2024)

*Lessor’s application for revocation dismissed (TAL, 2024-03-20)

The lessees apply for:

• a rent reduction of $2,200
• $6,600 in moral damages
• $1,147 in moving expenses
• $1,500 to reimburse the security deposit

(monthly rent of $2,200)

The Tribunal awards the lessees:

• $1,147 in moving expenses
• $2,000 in moral damages
• $1,500 to reimburse the security deposit

In December 2021, the lessors, who lived in British Columbia, sent the lessees a notice of repossession, which they accepted.

As an exception to the lessee’s right to maintain occupancy, a plan to repossess a dwelling requires a certain level of certainty and permanence.

The lessors did not repossess the dwelling in good faith.

It was certainly more practical for them to find a new house from Montreal instead of Vancouver, but a lessor cannot evict a lessee to live in the dwelling while waiting to relocate elsewhere and renovate it to improve it before putting it on the market.

The lessees are entitled to compensation for the inconvenience arising directly from the repossession of the dwelling in bad faith.

They are also entitled to the reimbursement of the $1,500 security deposit, which was required despite the prohibition set out in article 1904 of the Civil Code of Québec.

The inconvenience arising from the failure to replace one of the immovable’s doors is not significant enough to grant the reduction of rent.

Carroll c. Clayton (January 10, 2024)

The lessor applies for authorization to repossess the lessees’ dwelling as a residence for herself.

(monthly rent of $820)

The lessor’s application is granted.

In accordance with article 1961 of the Civil Code of Québec, the lessee does not need to explain the reasons for the application for repossession. As for the fact that the verso was not attached to the notice, doing so is not legally required. The notice of repossession is therefore valid.

The lessor, who is the sole owner of the immovable, a duplex, lives in the bottom dwelling, and the lessees live in the smaller dwelling on the top floor.

The lessor established that she truly intends to repossess the dwelling as a residence for herself and that it is not a pretext for other purposes.

Her plan to move into a smaller dwelling is related to a change in the custody of her youngest child, who, from now on, will live with his father in another province.

Nguyen c. Laflamme (January 17, 2024)

The lessor applies for:

• leave to appeal from the decision of the Tribunal administratif du logement dismissing her application for repossession of the dwelling

The lessee applies for:

• a declaration of abuse

Leave to appeal dismissed.

The Court of Québec, Administrative and Appeal Division, does not have jurisdiction at the leave to appeal stage to rule on the lessee’s application for a declaration of abuse.

The lessor, who is 93 years old, lives in one of the three dwellings in the immovable she owns.

The mere fact that she is a senior and is protected under section 48 of the Charter of human rights and freedoms does not mean that she has the right to repossess a dwelling at any time and in any circumstances.

The administrative judge dismissed the lessor’s application, invoking numerous reasons based, in particular on her and her daughter’s dubious credibility, not to mention the non-credible and non-permanent nature of her plan to repossess the dwelling occupied by the lessee.

Manolakos c. Mavrakis (February 12, 2024)

* Corrected on February 16, 2024

The lessees apply for:

• $15,000 in punitive damages
• $13,980 for the difference in rent that they had to pay for 12 months
• $200 in moving expenses
• $9,748 to reimburse the taxes that they had to pay on the amount they withdrew from a registered retirement savings plan (RRSP)

(monthly rent of $825)

The Tribunal awards the lessees:

• $15,000 in punitive damages
• $4,800 representing the difference between their hypothec payments and the rent paid for their former dwelling

The dwelling was never used for the purpose stated in the notice of repossession sent to the lessees, and the lessor never lived there.

The lessor used trickery or subterfuge to lead the lessees to consent to the repossession of their dwelling.

Even if the lease was resiliated and an agreement was reached regarding the early departure of the lessees, who found a house that was suitable for them, they did not renounce their right to claim damages under article 1968 of the Civil Code of Québec.

The awarding of punitive damages is intended to have a preventive and punitive, even denunciatory, function, within reasonable limits. It is a reasonable punishment for the lessor in light of the return obtained.

The lessees are entitled to the amount representing the difference between their hypothec payments and the rent paid for their former dwelling ($400 for 12 months).

However, they are not entitled to the reimbursement of the taxes they had to pay on the money they withdrew from an RRSP. These taxes are indirect damages arising from the lessees’ decision to use all their financial means to buy their house.

Lavoie c. Rodier (March 4, 2024)

The lessor applies for:

• authorization to repossess the lessees’ dwelling as a residence for her godmother and her parents

(monthly rent of $650)

The lessor’s application is dismissed.

There is no reason to authorize the repossession of the dwelling occupied by the lessees, who are over 70 years old, have been living in the dwelling for 26 years, and whose income is below the threshold provided by law.

The Tribunal cannot deprive them of their right to maintain occupancy, while the sole beneficiary of the repossession – the lessor’s godmother – is over 70 years of age and has only a precarious and uncertain right to live in Canada long term. The lessor’s parents also hold a temporary “super visa” for visitors.

Since the Tribunal must always analyze the repossession of a dwelling restrictively, it must be concluded that the lessor’s plan does not meet the criteria of feasibility and permanence established in the case law.

Guillaume c. Papamakarkis (April 30, 2024)

The lessors apply for:

• authorization to repossess the lessee’s dwelling as a residence for their son

(monthly rent of $677)

The lessors’ application is dismissed.

The lessors’ son, the beneficiary of the repossession, is a fire safety student currently doing an internship. He has no idea how long he will occupy the dwelling, which is dependent on his place of employment at the end of his professional training in one year.

The lessors are not authorized to repossess the dwelling in question as a residence for their son because their plan does not have the certainty and permanency required to terminate the lessee’s right to maintain occupancy.

Bottari c. Robitaille (May 17, 2024)

*Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

The lessors apply for:

• authorization to repossess the lessee’s dwelling as a residence for themselves

The lessee claims:

• $4,600 for moving expenses

(monthly rent of $950)

The lessors are authorized to repossess the dwelling.

An indemnity of $3,800 is granted to the lessee.

One of the lessors is 71 years old and the other one is 70 years old. At the hearing, the parties agreed to a partial settlement agreement regarding the repossession of the dwelling.

The lessee, who is 72 years old, agrees to have the dwelling repossessed as of November 1, 2024.

Regarding the lessee’s claim, as the case law teaches, the concept of “moving expenses” can be interpreted broadly. In addition to her age, consideration must also be given to the preparation of the move and the work carried out in the building, which means that movers will not have direct access to the dwelling.

Cordiveau c. Savignac (May 10, 2024; decision corrected on May 23, 2024)

The lessors apply for:

• authorization to repossess the lessee’s dwelling as a residence for their daughter

(monthly rent of $800)

The lessors’ application is granted.

Despite the irregularity of the notice of repossession raised by the lessee, this irregularity is not fatal to the lessors’ proceeding since they have established that the lessee did not suffer any injury as a result.

Furthermore, the evidence indicates that the lessee implicitly renounced his right to raise this irregularity since he had all the necessary information to respond to the notice and prepare his defence for the hearing before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal does not accept the lessee’s argument that the proposed repossession was uncertain, as it was not established that the beneficiary, who is 39 years old, would be able to conceive.

The lessors and their daughter are in good faith and can be reasonably optimistic about the arrival of a future family member.

The repossession of the dwelling is authorized.

The lessors are ordered to pay the lessee $3,500 as an indemnity.

The Tribunal takes into account the fact that the lessors agreed to postpone the repossession date to October 1, which means that the lessee will not be obliged to move on July 1, when moving expenses are at their highest.

Bien-Aimé c. Philpotts (June 18, 2024; decision corrected on July 8, 2024)

The lessor applies for:

• authorization to repossess the dwelling as a residence for herself

The lessee applies for:

• a declaration of abuse of procedure
• $10,000 in damages

Both applications are dismissed.

The lessee, who suffers from bulbar amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and wishes to access medical aid in dying, has established that the request to repossess the dwelling was nothing more than a pretext to prevent her from receiving this assistance in her dwelling.

The lessor’s proceeding is not abusive or discriminatory, however. She acted based on her religious beliefs and not on the lessee’s illness.

Ghita Morariu c. Taylor (July 24, 2024)