Tribunal administratif du logement
Change language
Menu
You are here :
The Tribunal makes summaries of decisions on various topics available to you.
That tool could be useful to prepare your application or as part of a conciliation session. For example, it could help you estimate the amount of damages to which you are entitled or the nature of the orders likely to be issued by the Tribunal.
The following examples of judgements are provided for information purposes only.
Several factors can influence an administrative judge’s decision. For example, a clause provided for in the lease, the relevance and quality of the evidence provided, etc. In summary, each case is different and each decision depends on the evidence submitted to the Tribunal.
Issue
Repossession of dwelling in bad faith by the lessor
The lessee is seekings $16,287 in damages
The lessor files an application to dismiss.
The lessee's application is inadmissible.
The application, which constitutes a recovery of a small claim, was made by a lawyer.
Contravention of art. 73 of the Act respecting the Régie du logement.
Inability to remedy the situation.
Savard c. Beaudry (November 30, 2018)
The lessor's proceeding is abusive
Its purpose is to avoid the execution of a decision of the Régie du logement by which he was ordered to pay the amount of $4,000
Harassment of the lessor
Loss of use of a shed
The lessee seeks:
The lessor seeks:
The administrative judge awards the lessee:
The lessor's proceeding is dismissed.
The lessor's allegations are not based on any legal basis or probative fact.
Filing a legal claim should not be taken lightly and should not be used as a tool for baseless resiliation.
The Régie du logement has no jurisdiction to sanction abusive proceedings.
The lessor used the letters he sent to the lessee and his proceeding to harass the lessee to get him to leave the dwelling.
Tang c. Bouti (November 7, 2018)
Lack of impartiality on the part of the administrative judge
The lessor is appealing a decision rendered by the Régie du logement.
The Administrative and Appeal Division of the Court of Québec refused to intervene.
Lack of an official application for recusation of the judge according to the procedure set out in the Rules of procedure of the Régie du logement.
The ground for recusation invoked orally by the lessor, namely the lack of impartiality arising from the fact that the administrative judge was already seized of a similar case involving the parties, is not one of the grounds listed in arts. 64 and 65 of the Act respecting the Régie du logement.
The lessor has not shown that the absence of recusation of the judge at the earliest opportunity affected her impartiality or brought the administration of the justice into disrepute.
Poirier-Pelletier c. Fortin (March 13, 2019)
Lessees are over three weeks late in paying the rent
Lessees signed a promise to purchase the building corresponding to their dwelling
Does the Régie du logement have jurisdiction to hear the dispute?
The lessor applies for:
(monthly rent is $1,020)
The lease is resiliated.
Lessees are ordered to pay the lessor $3,640.
The Régie du logement does not have jurisdiction to decide the case when the occupancy of the premises results from a promise to purchase.
The Régie has jurisdiction, however, if the time limit to acquire the building has expired.
In this case, the only contract binding the lessees and the lessor since July 1, 2018, (i.e. the expiry of the time limit to acquire the building) is a lease with an indeterminate term.
Lessees are over three weeks late in paying the rent.
Labelle c. Lambert (June 12, 2019)
On September 7, 2018, the Régie du logement resiliated the lease and ordered the lessee evicted from the rented premises
On October 2, 2018, an agreement was reached between the lessor and the lessee, who undertook to pay rent of $728, which represents arrears of $126 in addition to the monthly rent of $602, on the first day of each month for the period between October 1, 2018, and March 31, 2019
The lessee failed to comply with this agreement
The lessor instituted proceedings to evict the lessee from the dwelling pursuant to the decision of the Régie du logement and to seize the amount due and payable of $916.95
The lessee applies to have the proceedings instituted against him by the lessor cancelled.
The Régie dismisses:
Renouncing a right cannot be equivocal and the facts must establish this clear willingness to renounce it.
In order to have a tacit renunciation, the facts must establish a clear willingness to give up one’s right.
In reaching an agreement with the lessee, the lessor did not renounce her right to enforce the decision rendered by the Régie du logement.
Aware of the lessee’s financial difficulties, the lessor wanted to give him a second chance to pay his arrears and keep the dwelling.
The lessee did not take this opportunity since he was again unable to comply with his obligation to pay the rent on the first day of each month.
Société d’habitation et de développement de Montréal c. John (May 14, 2019)
Application for postponement
Absence of the lessor’s expert witness from the hearing
Lack of diligence on the part of the lessor, who did not take reasonable steps to ensure the presence of her expert witness on the day of the hearing (e.g. through a subpoena)
Rule of proportionality
The lessor appeals the decision of the Régie du logement dismissing her application for postponement.
The decision of the Régie du logement does not justify appellate intervention.
The Régie’s decision to refuse the postponement was an exercise of discretion and a case management decision.
The Régie rendered a reasonable decision in dismissing the lessee’s application for postponement, given the costs incurred by the plaintiff insurance companies to adduce their evidence, the time elapsed since the facts giving rise to the damage, the previous postponements, and the importance of the proper administration of quasi-judicial resources, coupled with her noted lack of diligence in ensuring the presence of her witness at the hearing.
Structures métropolitaines (SMI) inc. c. Compagnie mutuelle d’assurances Wawanesa (June 12, 2019)
Application for rent reduction
Right to be represented by counsel
Right to make full answer and defence
Value of the dispute is less than $15,000
The lessor applies for leave to appeal a decision rendered by the Régie du logement refusing to allow it to be represented by counsel.
Leave to appeal is granted.
When a lessee or a lessor appears before the Régie du logement with counsel, he or she cannot predict whether or not he or she will be able to be represented at the hearing; this unpredictability is unacceptable.
The question of whether an application for a rent reduction of a disputed value below the threshold of admissibility before the Small Claims Division can constitute an application whose sole object is the recovery a debt within the meaning of art. 73 of the Act respecting the Régie du Logement, which prevents counsel from acting on behalf of the parties, is controversial and deserves to be considered on appeal.
Metcap Living Management inc. c. Rouleau (July 29, 2019)
Housing agreement
Professional and social integration program
Lease resiliation agreement: defect of consent
Jurisdiction of the Régie du logement
The lessee requests that the lease resiliation agreement with the lessor be declared invalid.
The Régie du logement declines jurisdiction.
The dwellings have a specific purpose; they are covered by a housing agreement closely associated with the code of conduct and the regulations determined by the non-profit organization Mères avec pouvoir (MAP), which is aimed at single mothers.
Since the residential lease is dependent on the lessee’s participation in the program offered by MAP, it must be considered an accessory to an innominate contract consisting primarily of obligations in the nature of a service contract.
Achille c. Inter-loge (August 21, 2019)
Jurisdiction of the Régie
Lessor’s extracontractual liability
The lessee claims:
The Régie does not have jurisdiction to hear the application.
The sign posted on the door of the dwelling – suggesting that the lessee offers sexual services and, which, according to the lessee, was placed by the building janitor with the connivance of the lessor – appears to constitute an attack on the lessee’s dignity, honour and reputation.
This act does not constitute a breach of the lessor’s contractual obligations but a delictual fault that falls within the scope of extracontractual liability, which is beyond the jurisdiction of the Régie.
Jélétian c. 9034-2452 Québec inc. (December 30, 2019)
Note to reader: The above examples of decisions were selected and summarized by SOQUIJ. In rare instances, they may have been appealed from before a higher court. If you wish to cite one of those judgments before a tribunal, it is recommended that you check the plumitif of the courthouse in question.
If need be, you can consult other decisions with regard to dwelling leases by using the search engine (in French only) available free of charge on the SOQUIJ website. For best results, simply select a tribunal (e.g. Tribunal administratif du logement), and enter French key words such as “bruit” (noise), “moisissure” (mould), “zoothérapie” (animal therapy), “résiliation” (resiliation), “expulsion” (eviction), etc.
