The syndicate of co-owners seeks the resiliation of the lease.

The lease is resiliated.

The syndicate is substituted for the lessor’s rights in accordance with article 1079 of the Civil Code of Québec.

Conjugal arguments are frequent and take place at night. This constitutes abnormal inconveniences that are beyond the limit of tolerance.

There are several prejudices:

• loss of lessees
• loss of peaceable enjoyment of the co ownership
• management complicated due to complaints

The declaration of co-ownership prohibits the presence of animals.

The dog’s presence causes the syndicate serious prejudice: accumulation of excrements on the balcony, odours, frequent barking.

Syndicat Terrasse Chavoin c. Romain (June 21, 2018)

The lessor seeks:

• resiliation of the lease

The lease is resiliated.

The lessee is agressive, has regular altercations with other residents, insults people and makes inappropriate and hurtful comments.

Some people forego eating in the cafeteria and participating in activities because of the lessee's actions.

This situation creates an abnormal increase in building management for the lessor who must constantly manage complaints and conflicts surrounding the lessee's conduct.

The lessee's "victims" need to feel protected in the residence, which is a special living environment.

8168091 Canada inc. (Résidences Soleil Manoir Plaza) c. Lechasseur (October 29, 2018)

Lessees seek:

• $350 per month in rent reduction
• $2,000 in moral damages

(monthly rent is $1,416)

The administrative judge awards the lessees:

• $2,400 in rent reduction, which is equivalent to $200 per month

The work has caused a lot of noise and dust.

The lessees were disturbed by the snow removal of the site, which was carried out during the night or early in the morning.

Existence of serious and recurrent noise problems.

Loss of actual, significant and substantial enjoyment of the leased premises for the duration of the lease, i.e. from June 1, 2016, to June 30, 2017.

Guillemette c. Façades du Mesnil Phase 2 (December 18, 2018)

The lessee seeks damages and punitive damages.

(monthly rent $565)

The administrative judge awards the lessee:

• $6,638 in damages
• $2,500 in punitive damages

The Tribunal has the power to punish harassment only if its purpose is to restrict the enjoyment of the premises or to obtain the lessee's departure.

The harassment of the lessee by the lessor manifests itself in several ways:

• intolerance to noise
• insults and intimidation
• water interruptions
• malicious actions
• refusal to maintain her dwelling in a good state of repair

Ringuette c. Strunzinsky (February 4, 2019)

The lessor seeks:

• resiliation of the lease

The lease is resiliated.

Article 2 (7) of the Tobacco Act states that smoking is prohibited in the common areas of residential buildings comprising six or more dwellings.

The lessee prevents other occupants of the building from enjoying the peaceful enjoyment of the premises:

• causes strong, persistent and unpleasant cigarette smell in the building
• allows cold air to enter the building in winter
• hits the ramps and walls with her cane as she moves around
• uses intimidation and insults

Immobilière Cap 21 inc. c. Depelteau (February 6, 2019)

The lessor seeks:

• resiliation of the lease

The lease is not resiliated.

The total surface area of the living spaces of a dwelling must be at least 8.5 m² per person who lives in it (art. 42 of the Montreal By-law concerning the sanitation, maintenance and safety of dwelling units (03-096)).

Missing information: total area of lessees' dwelling.

There is no evidence of constant, excessive and unreasonable noise.

9322-1836 Québec inc. c. Nganga (March 5, 2019)

The syndicate of co-owners seeks the resiliation of the lease.

The lease is resiliated.

The unit is a private unit of a building held in divided co-ownership (condo).

The lessee and her guests sing and dance to very loud music and also scream, disturbing the peaceful enjoyment of the other occupants of the building.

Lack of cooperation from the lessee.

SDC phase 47-GR03-bloc190 (Kabura) c. Touré (March 6, 2019)

The lessee seeks $15,000 in punitive damages.

The Régie awards the lessee $5,000 in punitive damages.

The lessee was harassed by the lessor, who sought, through his repeated actions, to evict him from the dwelling he had occupied for nearly 30 years.

For example, noise emanating from the dwelling of the lessor, who occupies the building (duplex), is considered abnormal: constant knockings, incessant shouting of children, endless repair work.

Doiron c. Mohd Chowdhury (July 31, 2019)

The lessee applies for:

• $500 in material damages
• $1,000 in moral damages
• $1,000 in punitive damages

The lessor applies for:

• resiliation of the lease
• $300 in material damages
• $1,580 in moral damages
• $620 in reimbursement of his counsel fees

The Régie dismisses the lessor’s application and awards the lessee $500 in punitive damages.

The fact that the lessor deliberately cut the water in the dwelling to force the lessee to modify the lease constitutes harassment.

The lessor’s action was done to restrict the lessee’s right to peaceable enjoyment of the premises and is reprehensible.

The lessee is in breach of the lease by having a cat for companionship and not for the purposes of pet therapy.

To obtain the resiliation of the lease, the lessor had to prove that this situation caused him serious injury, which he did not do.

Horatius c. Viau (August 21, 2019)

The lessor applies for resiliation of the lease.

The lease is resiliated.

The lessee goes around armed with a long stick and does not hesitate to use violence to take revenge.

His behaviour is violent and incompatible with his obligation of good faith in his dealings with the lessor and its representatives.

The risk he poses disrupts the peaceful enjoyment of the other lessees.

All these facts establish that he causes the lessor serious prejudice.

Cap Reit GP inc., s.e.c./Cap Reit c. McCorquodale Alton (December 12, 2019)

The lessor applies for the resiliation of the lease.

The lease is resiliated.

The lessee allows his dwelling and the common areas of the building to be used as meeting places for the purchase and use of drugs and for the abuse of alcohol.

The lessor suffers serious prejudice given the magnitude, frequency and seriousness of the disruptive behaviour of the lessee and the persons he allows to have access to the leased premises.

The lessee refuses to collaborate in the eradication of bedbugs and cockroaches present in the dwelling.

Habitations populaires de Parc Extension c. St-Amour (December 18, 2019)

The lessor applies for resiliation of two leases.

The Régie suspends the resiliation of the leases in question and orders the two lessees to keep the peace and refrain from physically attacking the other lessees of the building.

Two lessees living in separate dwellings got into a fight.

This single event caused serious prejudice to the lessor, who has an obligation to provide all the lessees of the building with a certain peace of mind and a secure environment.

Since the fight, the lessees have not seen each other again or engaged in any further improper behaviour.

Office municipal d’habitation de Prévost c. Therrien (January 6, 2020)

The lessee applies for:

• resiliation of the lease
• $5,000 in moral damages for invasion of her privacy and for trouble and inconvenience
• $5,000 in punitive damages

The lessors apply for:

• $1,587 for deterioration of the dwelling
• $310 in compensation for re-rental
• $5,000 for trouble and inconvenience

The Tribunal awards the lessee:

• $5,000 in moral damages
• $5,000 in punitive damages

The lessors are entitled to:

• $1,587 in material damages
• $310 in compensation for re-rental
• $1,000 for trouble and inconvenience

Lessors are not entitled to enter a dwelling, even after knocking, without giving lessees 24 hours’ prior notification, unless there is an emergency.

The lessor invaded the lessee’s privacy by entering her dwelling without authorization on several occasions.

He also had no right to decide to take the lessee’s dog to a shelter.

Grant c. Gravel (August 20, 2020)

The lessee applies for:

• rent reduction
• $2,000 in moral damages
• $1,000 in punitive damages

(monthly rent is $396)

The Tribunal awards the lessee:

• a monthly rent reduction of $20, for a total of $380
• $2,000 in moral and punitive damages

The lessee does not have the full enjoyment of her dwelling as a result of her neighbours’ behaviour and actions.

Due to the noise, the lessee cannot use one of the rooms in her dwelling.

The lessor’s representative made racist comments about the lessee’s son, which were also directed at the lessee.

Moral damages must be related to factors such as stress, anxiety, or other miscellaneous constraints, caused by the lessor’s behaviour and not to the loss of enjoyment, which is compensated by the rent reduction.

Arcuri c. Coopérative Belles-Fleurs (September 28, 2020)

The lessor sought :

• to have the lease resiliated

The lease was resiliated.

The lessee is bound to pay the agreed rent and to use the property with prudence and diligence during the term of the lease and keep the dwelling in clean condition.

In addition, he or she must comply with the obligations imposed by law with respect to the safety and sanitation of leased premises.

The lessee’s behaviour was aggressive, threatening, and totally inappropriate towards the lessor’s employees and the other lessees in the residence.

The lessee did not maintain the dwelling adequately by refusing to clean and keep the premises clean, thereby hindering the eradication of vermin.

This behaviour compromised the safety of the immovable’s other occupants and the employees.

Résidences Soleil Pointe-aux-Trembles c. Lirette (January 14, 2021)

The lessor applies for:

• resiliation of the lease

The lessee applies for:

• an order against the lessor to cease harassing behaviour

The Tribunal:

• orders the lessee to keep the peace and not to disturb the peaceful enjoyment of the lessor’s premises
• orders the lessee and the occupants of the dwelling to behave reasonably and respectfully towards the lessor and his family

Given that the occupants of the dwelling are receiving social services follow-up in connection with their mental health problems, it is preferable to render various orders rather than to terminate the lease.

The lessee was not a victim of harassment or intimidation by the lessor.

Delli Quadri c. Ratté (January 21, 2021)

The lessor applies for:

• specific performance of the lessee’s obligations

The Tribunal orders the lessee to:

• remove the surveillance cameras he installed
• comply with the lessor’s by-laws
• change the siding of his building or shed so that the colours are coordinated within a reasonable delay

The lessee must have good reasons or obtain the lessor’s permission to install cameras that extend beyond the rented property.

The lessee may not capture images of the street, which is a space shared by all the residents of the mobile home park.

The sections of the by-law appended to the lease are reasonable since they aim to ensure a safe and pleasant environment. In addition, they are based on the lessor’s management rights.

Domaine des maisons modulaires Deux-Montagnes inc. c. Bernier (February 2, 2021)

The lessors apply for:

• the resiliation of the lease

The lessee applies for:

• $5,500 in moral and punitive damages

The Tribunal dismisses the applications of the lessee and the lessors.

The lessors apply for the resiliation of the lessee's lease because of a conflict between him and another lessee. They affirm that the situation causes them serious injury in the management of their immovable. They have installed a surveillance camera in the hallway where the dwellings of the two lessees are located.

The camera is set up in one of the common areas of the immovable. It is not directed at the door of the lessee's dwelling and its purpose is not to observe his comings and goings. The evidence does not establish a violation of the lessee's privacy or that the situation justifies an award of moral damages.

There is no reason to resiliate the lease because the lessors have not established that the lessee's behaviour has caused them serious injury.

Boulianne c. Flaux (November 3, 2021)

The lessee applied for:

• $11,665 in material damages
• $2,500 in moral damages
• $2,500 in punitive damages
• $1,640 in reimbursement of rent

(monthly rent is $950)

The Tribunal awarded the lessee:

• $1,000 in material damages
• $1,000 in moral damages
• $2,500 in punitive damages
• $1,640 in reimbursement of rent

The lessor’s mandatary behaved reprehensibly. He entered the lessee’s dwelling without authorization before the end of the lease. He removed and threw out the property that was still there. He did not try to contact the lessee for confirmation that the property had no value and that he could dispose of it.

The lessor’s mandatary violated the lessee’s right to privacy, to the peaceful enjoyment and free disposition of his property, to the inviolability of his home, and to respect for his private property. As there was an unlawful and intentional interference with a right under the Charter of human rights and freedoms, the lessee was entitled to punitive damages.

Weill c. 9123-8584 Québec inc. (November 18, 2021)

The lessor applies for:

• the resiliation of the lease
• $776 in material damages
• $2,000 in moral damages

The Tribunal:

• resiliates the lease
• dismisses the lessor's application for moral and material damages

The dwelling of 65 square metres at issue is inhabited by 9 persons: a family of 2 adults and 7 children.

The lessee has contravened the municipal by-law. Each occupant of the dwelling has 7 square metres at his or her disposal, whereas the minimum provided in the by-laws is 8.5 square metres.

The overcrowding of the dwelling has caused serious injury to the lessor, due to the irremediable deterioration of his immovable.

The lessee and his family were also responsible for persistent, repeated, abnormal, and excessive problems that bothered the neighbours, depriving them of the peaceable enjoyment of their own dwellings.

The moral damages claimed by the lessor are extracontractual damages that cannot be granted in an application concerning a residential dwelling before the Tribunal administratif du logement.

David c. Abbas Chaudry (January 20, 2022)

The lessee applies for:

• a rent reduction
• moral damages
• the reimbursement of amounts paid further to a lease resiliation agreement

(monthly rent of $1,825)

The Tribunal grants the lessee:

• $2,285 in rent reduction
• $800 in moral damages
• $1,875 in reimbursement of the rental indemnity

The lessee had to work from her dwelling because of the COVID-19 pandemic. She suffered a loss of peaceful enjoyment of the premises because of abnormal and recurring noise caused by work in the building. The work, which lasted three months, hampered the performance of her work and caused her numerous inconveniences.

The lessee had to quickly leave the premises to be able to continue to work in a quiet environment. She was forced to sign a lease resiliation agreement and pay the penalties demanded by the lessor so that she could move quickly. Because her consent was vitiated, she is entitled to the restitution of the relocation indemnity she paid to the lessor.

Laplante c. Groupe immobilier Lyndalex (January 26, 2022)

The lessor appeals from:

• a decision of the Tribunal administratif du logement condemning it to pay $800 to the lessee.

The lessor’s appeal is dismissed.

The lessee is entitled to a rent reduction proportionate to the serious inconveniences caused by major work, even though the lessor was required to carry out that work as a result of its obligations of maintenance and security.

The necessary and inevitable nature of major work carried out on an immovable does not make the associated inconvenience normal.

Although the lessor did not commit a fault, the lessee is nevertheless entitled to compensation by means of a rent reduction. The lessee’s choice to rent a dwelling in an older immovable does not constitute a waiver of that right.

Structures métropolitaines SMI inc. c. Lemieux (March 21, 2022)

The lessee (file 1) applied for:

• $5,000 in moral damages
• $5,000 in punitive damages
• $2,022 in material damages
• a rent reduction ($100 a month)
• an order directing the lessor to cease all harassment and to carry out the repairs in the dwelling

The lessees (file 2) applied for:

• $1,000 in moral damages
• a rent reduction ($100 a month)
• an order directing the lessor to cease all harassment

(monthly rent in both files is $400)

In file 1, the Tribunal awarded the lessee:

• $5,000 in moral damages
• $5,000 in punitive damages
• $350 for loss of enjoyment of the premises and a rent reduction of $50 a month for the future until the work is completed
• an order directing the lessor to stop intimidating and harassing the lessee

In file 2, the Tribunal awarded the lessees:

• $1,000 in moral and punitive damages
• $1,200 in rent reduction for loss of enjoyment of the premises
• an order directing the lessor to stop intimidating and harassing the lessees

The lessor regularly and constantly harassed all the lessees and was often aggressive with them. He escalated his actions in order to restrict their right to the peaceful enjoyment of the leased premises and to convince them to leave.

The lessor’s actions caused the lessees moral distress, constant stress, severe anxiety, and the loss of peaceful enjoyment of the premises for 18 months.

Yule c. Roussy* (December 7, 2021)

* Corrected on July 18, 2022

The lessee applies for:

• rent reduction
• $1,500 in moral damages
• $1,000 in punitive damages

(monthly rent of $472)

The Tribunal awards the lessee:

• $600 in rent reduction
• $1,500 in moral damages
• $1,000 in punitive damages

The parties were bound by a lease for a dwelling; section E of the lease form included the right to access the yard, with no precisions or limitations.

For 15 years, the lessee maintained the back yard and planted flowerbeds. The situation changed when the lessors' son moved into another dwelling in the immovable in July 2019. The lessee had to cease all her gardening activities because of the son's attitude and the transformation of the yard.

The expression [TRANSLATION] "access to the yard" used in the lease is non-exhaustive and it is not necessary to note a use of the premises that the lessors allow.

The lessee had a real right to use the back yard to enjoy her gardening activities. She is entitled to a rent reduction of $50 for each of the months she was deprived of this use.

The lessors, who never expressed disapproval of the actions or conduct of their son, are condemned to pay moral and punitive damages to the lessee.

Roy c. Rebelo de Andrade (September 6, 2022)

The lessee applies for:

• $25,000 in moral damages
• $10,000 in punitive damages
• $750 in material damages
• an order compelling the lessor to supply the dwelling with electricity

(monthly rent of $510, including electricity)

The Tribunal:

• awards the lessee:
  • $1,500 in moral damages
  • $3,000 in punitive damages
  • $39 in material damages for the electricity and subscription costs to Hydro-Québec

and

• orders the lessor to restore the subscription to Hydro-Québec in his name so that he is responsible for the dwelling's energy costs

The lessor, who wanted to repossess the dwelling, took multiple steps to incite the lessee to leave the premises.

The lessee is entitled to $1,500 in compensation for the trouble and inconvenience suffered because of the lessor's conduct, communications he had with her, and the fact that the electricity for the dwelling was cut off.

The lessee is also entitled to punitive damages because the lessor took the law into his own hands by trying to repossess his building by restricting the lessee's right to full enjoyment of her dwelling and to maintain occupancy.

Boulanger c. Dallaire (September 29, 2022)

The lessee seeks:

• a 50% rent reduction
• $500 in moral damages

(monthly rent of $720)

The Tribunal awards the lessee:

• a rent reduction of $150 a month
• $300 in moral damages

The lessee is entitled to a rent reduction because she suffered loss of enjoyment of her dwelling due to frequent and abnormal noise from the daycare operated in the dwelling beneath hers.

The lessee is also entitled to moral damages, given the significant stress she suffered because of this noise.

The lessors have an obligation of result that consists in providing peaceful enjoyment of the leased premises. They should not have permitted the commercial use of the dwelling below the lessee’s dwelling, especially since the noise insulation in the building is not adapted to this type of use.

Cadena c. Singer (January 11, 2023)

The lessee applies for:

• rent reduction of $4,950
• $5,000 in moral damages and moving expenses

(monthly rent of $1,980)

The Tribunal awards the lessee:

• $700 in rent reduction

The lessee is entitled to a rent reduction to compensate for the loss of enjoyment of the premises resulting from the presence of clients of the Airbnb platform.

However, the lessee is not entitled to compensatory damages because she has not established that the lessor committed a fault. Indeed, the lessor took steps to correct the problem, in particular by obtaining the resiliation of the lease of the lessee who was leasing his dwelling through Airbnb.

Piccolo c. Timbercreek Asset Management Inc. (February 16, 2023)

The lessees apply for:

• $3,177 in punitive damages

The Tribunal awards the lessees:

• $1,000 in punitive damages

The lessor violated the inviolability of the lessees’ home. It entered their dwelling in their absence and caried out non-urgent repairs. The lessees, who had left the dwelling before the termination of the lease, had clearly expressed their desire that no one enter the dwelling in their absence without their authorization.

The fact that the dwelling was vacant does not change the lessor’s obligation to give the lessee a prior notice of 24 hours, except in case of emergency, before carrying out any work (art. 1931 C.C.Q.).

As there was an unlawful and intentional interference with a right protected by the Charter of human rights and freedoms, the lessees are entitled to punitive damages.

Plouffe c. Sovima investissement inc. (February 8, 2023)

The syndicate of co-owners of the immovable where the dwelling is located applies for:

• resiliation of the lease

The application is dismissed.

The lessee leased a dwelling in an immovable held in co-ownership under the terms of a lease entered into with the lessor. The syndicate of co-owners received several complaints concerning noise and disturbances coming from festive evenings taking place in the dwelling, often late at night.

The legislature allows the syndicate of co-owners to override the lessors’ rights even though it is not a party to the lease (art. 1079 C.C.Q.). The Tribunal therefore has jurisdiction to hear the application for resiliation of the lease filed by the syndicate of co-owners.

The lessee’s obligation not to disturb the normal enjoyment of the other lessees extends to disturbances of enjoyment caused to a co-owner of the immovable where the dwelling is located.

The syndicate of co-owners did not establish that the lessee had disturbed the peaceful enjoyment of the other occupants of the immovable so as to warrant the resiliation of the lease.

By choosing to go and live in a residential complex located in the heart of downtown Montreal, the co-owners cannot expect to find the same tranquility as is usually associated with a single-family home in the suburbs.

Syndicat de la copropriété Roccabella c. Hazout (March 28, 2023)

The lessee applied for:

• a 25% reduction in rent
• $4,000 in moral damages
• $8,000 in punitive damages
• $2,000 in damages for abusive proceedings
• procedural limitations

The lessors applied for:

• resiliation of the lease

(monthly rent of $500)

The Tribunal awarded the lessee:

• $500 in moral damages
• $2,500 in punitive damages

The Tribunal dismissed:

• the lessee’s application for a rent reduction
• the application for a declaration of abuse

The lease was resiliated.

The application for procedural limitations was premature.

The lessee, who applied for a rent reduction due to noise caused by renovation work performed by the lessors, music from the lessors’ dwelling, and the barking of a dog belonging to another lessee in the building, failed to establish that he suffered serious loss justifying a rent reduction.

The lessors, who wanted to repossess the lessee’s dwelling to live there but who did not meet the criteria set out in the law to do so, used undue pressure and even harassment towards the lessee so that he would leave the dwelling he had been living in for 10 years.

The lessee’s lease was resiliated because the punch in the face he gave one of the lessors was an unacceptable act of violence.

The lessor’s application was not abusive. They displayed no bad faith, carelessness, negligence or recklessness in exercising the remedy they brought against the lessee.

Laghribi c. Luu (June 12, 2023)

The lessee applies for:

• the specific performance of the lessor’s obligations
• a 20% monthly rent reduction
• $500 in damages

(monthly rent of $500)

The Tribunal:

• grants a $40 monthly rent reduction as of April 2023 until the lessee can regain peaceable enjoyment of the leased premises
• condemns the lessor to pay $500 in damages
• +orders the lessor to take the necessary measures to provide the lessee with peaceable enjoyment of the leased premises

The lessee, who has lived in her dwelling since 2016, invokes a loss of enjoyment related to the behaviour of those occupying the dwelling above hers. She argues that their pets’ feces are thrown onto her balcony and that their urine drips down the outside wall of her dwelling. She also reports that she was insulted and that the reprisals taken by the occupants are the result of a complaint she filed against them with a society for the prevention of cruelty to animals. She adds that they continuously wake her up during the night by making a lot of noise.

The lessee fulfilled her obligation to denounce the alleged issues to the lessor through the notification of a formal notice in February 2023.

If there is conflict between neighbouring lessees, the lessor must intervene as a liable intermediary.

In this case, the lessor did not sufficiently intervene with the lessees in question. He failed in his obligation to provide the lessee with peaceable enjoyment of the dwelling. An order for specific performance is issued.

Miville c. Ward (January 8, 2024)

The lessor applies for:

• the resiliation of the lease
• the eviction of the lessee and of all the dwelling’s occupants

(monthly rent of $331)

The lessor’s application is granted.

The eviction of the lessee should be ordered as he is unable to manage the behaviour of his visitors, who are often persons experiencing situations of homelessness.

This results in very serious abnormal neighbourhood disturbances that affect the other lessees’ everyday life.

Nothing came of the measures put in place by the lessor with the help of the police and various community workers.

The lessee should not be given one last chance.

Last, the prejudice suffered by the lessor and the other lessees of the immovable justifies the provisional execution of the eviction order, despite the appeal.

Office municipal d'habitation de Montréal c. Morin (January 9, 2024)

The lessors apply for the resiliation of the lessee’s lease.

The lessors’ application is dismissed.

This file was part of a joint hearing with the files of the other lessees of the same immovable, which are subject to the same application by the lessors.

The lessee, who lives alone with her dog, has been living in the basement for 36 years. She had been living in harmony with the other lessee, who has been living on the top floor for 23 years, until the new lessees living on the first floor arrived 3 years ago.

These new lessees, who go to bed very early, cannot impose their lifestyle on their neighbours and must accept the normal neighbourhood annoyances without taking reprisals.

Given the repeated and unfounded complaints filed by the lessees of the first floor and the noise they make, in particular during their daily praying sessions, the resiliation of their lease is justified, but they will be given one last chance.

Hoang c. Henrichon (T.A.L., 2024-01-10), 2024 QCTAL 444, SOQUIJ AZ-51996212, 2024EXP-1582 (January 10, 2024)

The files concerning the other lessees can be found here:

Hoang c. Viorica (January 10, 2024)

Hoang c. Ceac (January 10, 2024)

The lessee applies for:

• the resiliation of the lease
• a monthly rent reduction of 35% as of July 2017 and 85% as of May 2021
• $4,500 in material damages
• $20,000 in moral damages
• $20,000 in punitive damages
• the reimbursement of certain expenses

(monthly rent of $540)

The Tribunal awards the lessee:

• $450 in rent reduction
• $2,500 in moral damages
• $4,000 in punitive damages
• $35 for the cost of registered mail

The lessor made excessive noise to bother the lessee and even used his dog to do so. He also deliberately put garbage bins in front of her dwelling and regularly insulted her.

He did not take any measures to resolve the water infiltration and parasite issues that were noted in an inspection report by the borough.

The lessee, who was in a situation of insecurity that caused the loss of enjoyment of her dwelling, is entitled to a rent reduction for this reason.

The lessor’s actions were part of a strategy to induce the lessee’s departure, which constitutes harassment under article 1902 of the Civil Code of Québec.

The lessee is not entitled to the indemnity for 3 months of rent that she is claiming. Her application for material damages is also dismissed given that no formal notice was sent to the lessor before she abandoned her belongings.

Boudrias-Arreal c. Beaudin (January 10, 2024)

The lessor applies for:

• the resiliation of the lease
• the eviction of the lessee

The Tribunal:

• resiliates the lease
• orders the lessee’s eviction

According to the lessor, the lessee, who is a musician, disturbs the peace and quiet of the other residents, in particular through frequent music sessions and festive gatherings. The lessor has failed to establish, however, that the noise made by the lessee is excessive.

The Tribunal did not allow the lessor to file the lessee’s criminal and penal court ledger into evidence, as his criminal record is not relevant to the dispute.

The lessee does not use his dwelling with prudence and diligence.

In addition to being threatening, he regularly moves the cameras installed by the lessor. He stole a parcel and is believed to have drawn graffiti in the stairwell.

By damaging the building and lashing out at the lessor and his mandataries, the lessee has caused the lessor serious prejudice justifying the resiliation of the lease and his eviction.

Berkane c. El Hasni (April 11, 2024)

The lessors apply for:

• the resiliation of the lease
• the eviction of the lessees
• $550 in material damages
• $2,500 in moral damages

(monthly rent of $735)

The Tribunal grants the lessors:

• the resiliation of the lease
• $488 in material damages
• $1,000 in moral damages

According to the evidence presented by the lessors, the lessees are a source of nuisance and have caused significant disturbances and inconvenience to the occupants of the building through their behaviour and attitude.

The lessees removed two cameras from inside the building and climbed onto the balcony of their ground-floor neighbours to attempt to steal a third camera.

The lessees do not use the leased premises with prudence and diligence. They have also damaged the floors and doors. They smoke heavily inside without regard for their neighbours. The lessee’s daughter stole a parcel. The lessees are very noisy, shouting and insulting the other lessees in the building.

The lessors have tried to intervene on several occasions to settle disputes between the lessees. All these incidents have caused the lessors a great deal of stress.

The lessors have established that these disturbances exceed normal neighbourhood annoyances. They are entitled to obtain the resiliation of the lease and to be compensated, in particular for the stress and inconvenience suffered and the damage to their property.

Richer c. St-Louis (October 9, 2024)