The lessee seeks:

• $2,000 for abuse of procedure
• $4,000 in punitive damages for harassment
• $3,000 in moral damages
• $100 per month in rent reduction

The lessor seeks:

• $3,650 in rent recovery
• $640 for property damages
• $26,000 in damages

The administrative judge awards the lessee:

• $3,000 in punitive damages
• $2,000 in moral damages

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)

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 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)

The lessee applies to have the proceedings instituted against him by the lessor cancelled.

The Régie dismisses:

• the application in opposition to the seizure in the hands of a third person and in contestation of the eviction execution measure

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)

The lessor applies for:

• resiliation of the lease
• recovery of unpaid rent ($3,640)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

The lessee claims:

• damages
• moral damages

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)

The lessor appealed the Tribunal administratif du logement’s decision declining jurisdiction to hear his application with respect to an indemnity for re-leasing on the ground that the lease between the parties was cancelled due to a defect in consent.

Appeal allowed.

The cancelled lease is deemed to have never existed. Each party must then return to the other the prestations that were received.

Given the lessees’ actual occupancy of the premises prior to the Tribunal administratif du logement’s decision to cancel the lease, restitution in kind is impossible; therefore, it must be done by equivalence.

Therefore, the Tribunal administratif du logement has jurisdiction to hear the lessor’s application to claim an indemnity for re-lease.

Blouin c. Argall (December 16, 2020)

The lessor sought :

• $10,469 for services rendered to the lessee that were not included in the rent

The Tribunal awarded the lessor :

• $800 for the services offered to the lessee

The Tribunal administratif du logement has jurisdiction to hear a contestation of the assessment of the degree of care, frequency, and need for the lessee to receive certain services offered in the private seniors’ residence operated by the lessor.

No health care professional testified to explain the lessee’s state of health and the care it required.

The lessee needed help to dress more warmly before she was taken for dialysis when the temperature required it. The Tribunal estimated the value of those services at $25.

HCN-Cogir Lessee c. Misitano (January 7, 2021)

The lessees sought :

• an order for specific performance
• to have the rent fixed
• a rent reduction
• material, moral, and punitive damages

The lessor sought :

• the dismissal of the lessees’ application because it was not effected within a reasonable time

The lessees’ application is expired

An application instituted with the Tribunal administratif du logement before August 31, 2020, that has not yet been notified on that date becomes subject to the rules then in force respecting notification of the application set out in s. 56.2 of the Act respecting the Administrative Housing Tribunal.

That section provides that proof of notification must be filed “within 45 days after the application is instituted”; failing which, “the application expires, and the Tribunal closes the record”.

The lessees did not file in the record proof of notification.

Mattalia c. Rasteiro (January 18, 2021)

The lessor appeals:

• a decision of the Régie du logement refusing the right to be represented by counsel

The lessee’s appeal is dismissed.

An application for a rent reduction for a past period of time, where the amount in dispute does not exceed the threshold of admissibility before the Small Claims Division ($15,000), constitutes an application whose sole object is the recovery a debt within the meaning of art. 73 of the Act respecting the Régie du Logement, thus preventing counsel from acting on behalf of the parties.

Metcap Living Management Inc. c. Rouleau (January 22, 2021)

The lessee sought :

• leave to appeal from a decision of the Régie du logement, dismissing her application for revocation of a decision condemning her to pay $1,062 in unpaid rent

The lessor sought :

• to have the application for abuse of procedure dismissed
• to have the lessee declared a quarrelsome litigant
• $13,584 in damages

Both applications were dismissed.

The Court of Quebec cannot award damages in the context of a dismissal of an application for leave to appeal from a decision of the Régie du logement.

The decision to allow the lessor’s representative to testify in French is a management decision taken during the hearing; that decision, which fell under the discretion of the administrative judge of the Régie du logement, cannot be reviewed by way of a revocation of judgment.

After dismissing an application for leave to appeal a decision of the Régie du logement, the Court of Quebec judge did not have the required jurisdiction to declare the appellant lessee quarrelsome.

Collins c. Immeubles Guy St-Louis inc. (January 29, 2021)

The lessee objects:

• to a seizure in execution and a proceeding for eviction

The Court of Quebec authorizes:

• the lessee to continue to occupy his dwelling

The lessee may avoid resiliation of his lease by paying the rent due, along with interest and costs, before judgment.

In this case, the lessee paid the rent due when the judgment was rendered, but he paid the interests and the costs of $101 only two weeks later.

The Court applied the line of authority according to which, when the lessee pays before acquiring knowledge of the Tribunal administratif du logement decision, and only a modest amount in interest and costs remains outstanding “after the judgment”, the court may allow the lease to remain in force and block the eviction of the lessee if all outstanding amounts are fully paid by the date of the hearing before the Court of Quebec.

Casimy c. Chen (February 23, 2021)

The lessee applies for:

• leave to appeal from two Tribunal administratif du logement decisions rejecting her request for postponement and application for revocation of judgment

The lessee’s application is dismissed.

The lessee requested a postponement of the hearing, arguing that she was afraid to attend a hearing in person while the Montreal area was a “red zone” due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

She did not support the request with a medical certificate establishing that she would be at risk or evidence that the measures implemented by the Tribunal to ensure safety were inadequate.

In her application for revocation, the lessee stated that she was prevented from attending the hearing due to the pandemic. The administrative judge dismissed this application, stating that [TRANSLATION] “the case law establishes that the refusal to allow a postponement can be a ground of appeal, but it is not a ground of revocation”. There is no error in that decision.

Amari c. Heng (March 4, 2021)

The lessee objects:

• to a notice of execution of eviction

The Court of Quebec authorizes:

• the lessee to continue to occupy her dwelling

The fact that a lessee failed to pay the interest and legal costs in a timely manner is not always fatal to maintaining the lease.

The lessee paid the rent in full before the judgment and she was eager to pay the interest and the costs as soon as she became aware of the amount due. The resiliation of the lease and resulting eviction is a disproportionate, excessive, and unreasonable sanction.

Danio (Dagneau) c. Hébert (March 4, 2021)

The lessees apply for:

• leave to appeal from a decision of the Tribunal administratif du logement declining jurisdiction on the ground that their application did not concern a lease of a dwelling

The lessors apply for:

• a declaration of abuse

The Court of Quebec dismisses both applications.

The Tribunal administratif du logement has jurisdiction over all applications concerning the lease of a dwelling.

Since the daycare operated by the lessee used over one-third of the total floor area of the leased premises, the Tribunal concluded that the lease between the parties was not a lease of a dwelling.

The issue raised by the lessee regarding whether the operation of a home daycare constitutes a lease of a dwelling that “is used for purposes other than residential purposes” is not controversial. It is therefore not an issue that ought to be submitted to the Court of Quebec.

A judge of the Court of Quebec does not have the power to declare an application for leave to appeal abusive or to sanction such conduct.

Makhlouf c. Pino (March 4, 2021)

The lessee applies for:

• $1,600 in moral damages
• $102 in damages
• $5,000 in punitive damages

The Tribunal declines jurisdiction.

The last paragraph of s. 63.2 of the Act respecting the Administrative Housing Tribunal, which allows the Tribunal to rule on whether a proceeding is abusive or dilatory and to award damages to compensate for any resulting injuries suffered does not apply to a proceeding that was pending when it came into force on August 31, 2020.

The lessee’s application is intimately connected to an application instituted by the lessee before that provision came into force. It is therefore the former version, which allows for a ruling solely on the abusive nature of a proceeding, that applies.

Discontinuance to avoid a declaration of abuse of process may in itself be abusive and may therefore be refused by the Tribunal.

Appartements DSM inc. c. Ekanga Njanga (March 19, 2021)

The lessors apply for:

• the eviction of the lessees

The lessees ask the Superior Court:

• to declare that it has no jurisdiction to hear the application to evict

The Superior Court:

• declines jurisdiction
• declares that the Tribunal administratif du logement has jurisdiction to hear the dispute
• dismisses the application to evict

The lessees, who were unable to leave Quebec due to the COVID-19 pandemic, sought short-term accommodation. At the time, the rental of tourist accommodations was prohibited in Quebec.

The lessors offered the lessees a dwelling that is usually leased for resort purposes for an initial term of one month. The lessors refused to extend the lease beyond three months.

Despite the short rental period, it was a residential lease. Only the Tribunal administratif du logement has jurisdiction to hear the file since the value of the rent claimed is less than $85,000.

Singh c. Ladouceur (March 24, 2021)

The lessee applies for:

• leave to appeal a decision by the Tribunal administratif du logement, which resiliated his lease and condemned him to pay the unpaid rent

The lessee’s application is dismissed.

The time allowed to appeal a decision of the Tribunal begins to run as of the date of the decision and not as of the date of notification of the decision.

Since the contested decision was dated December 16, 2020, and the lessee filed his application on January 22, 2021, this application was late.

Caraballo c. 9376-7200 Québec inc. (April 7, 2021)

The lessee appeals:

• a decision by the Régie du logement refusing his application for revocation

The lessee’s appeal is dismissed.

The lessee was negligent in failing to inform the Régie of his new address.

Sections 60.1 and 89 of the Act respecting the Administrative Housing Tribunal set out the obligation concerning the change of address and state that a party who fails to comply cannot apply for the revocation of a decision rendered in his or her absence. These provisions incorporate the previous state of the law, which sanctioned a party’s failure to inform the Tribunal of a change of address, by dismissing an application for revocation that was based on an allegation that the notice of convocation was not received.

Grégoire c. RNP Investissements inc. (April 13, 2021)

The lessor files:

• an application for review of a Régie du logement decision declining jurisdiction

The Superior Court concludes that:

• the Régie du logement had jurisdiction to hear the dispute

The parties signed a contract before a notary that included two aspects: a promise to purchase-sell an immovable (section A of the contract) and a lease on that same immovable (section B of the contract).

In cases where a lease and a promise to purchase-sell coexist, it is not necessary to determine which contract is accessory to the other, but rather to define the true object of the dispute between the parties and whether it is related to the promise to purchase or to the rental agreement that allows for use of the immovable in the meantime.

In this case, the object of the dispute between the parties bears on the obligations contained in the lease and not on those in the promise to purchase-sell.

Roy c. Massicotte* (April 14, 2021)

* Lessees' claim granted in part and lessor's claim dismissed (T.A.L., 2021-09-15 (corrected decision on 2021-09-22)), 2021 QCTAL 22725, SOQUIJ AZ-51794757.

The lessees apply for:

• leave to appeal a decision by the Régie du logement, condemning them to pay a sum of money

The lessees’ application is granted.

Order 2020-4251 (Order concerning the suspension of prescription and procedural periods and the use of another means of communication by reason of the public health emergency declared on 13 March 2020) applies to the time allowed to appeal a decision of the Régie du logement set out in s. 92 of the Act respecting the Régie du logement.

The application for leave to appeal instituted by the lessees was not filed outside the time limit.

Létourneau c. Piché* (April 15, 2021)

* Out-of-court settlement (C.Q., 2021-08-05)

The lessor applies for:

• leave to appeal a decision by the Tribunal administratif du logement concerning its jurisdiction to hear the parties’ applications

The lessee’s application is dismissed.

Even if the party applying for leave to appeal a decision of the Tribunal demonstrates that the issue that he or she would like to bring before the Court of Quebec must be heard, no appeal is possible if one of the four exceptions set out in the second paragraph of s. 91 of the Act respecting the Administrative Housing Tribunal is applicable.

In this case, since the sole object of the decision was a small claim, no appeal is possible.

Nicolas c. Altagracia (June 21, 2021)

The lessor applied for:

• fixing of rent
• to be released from her failure to notify the RN form

The Tribunal:

• noted that the lessor’s application was expired
• dismissed the lessor’s application to be released from her failure

Section 56.3 of the Act respecting the Administrative Housing Tribunal states that a lessor who presents an application for the fixing of rent must deposit the duly completed RN form and proof of its notification to the lessee in the Tribunal record within 90 days.

Failure to notify the RN form to the lessee results in the expiry of the application for the fixing of rent.

The lessor did not raise any reason to justify releasing her from her failure to notify the RN form to the lessee within the prescribed time. Notification of the “calculation tool” available on the Tribunal’s website is not enough to fulfill that obligation because the calculation sheet does not contain all the information that appears in the RN form.

Garceau c. Côté (October 29, 2021)

The lessor seeks the dismissal of proceedings the lessee brought against him due to the cancellation of the lease.

The Tribunal declares that it has jurisdiction to hear the lessee's application.

The lease is null and deemed never to have existed because it concerns a dwelling that does not comply with municipal fire safety standards.

The parties must return the prestations they have received from each other. It is appropriate for restitution to take place by equivalence since restitution of the prestations in kind is impossible because of the lessee's occupation of the dwelling.

The Tribunal administratif du logement has jurisdiction to hear the parties' applications for restitution of prestation by equivalence and the restoration of the parties to their original positions by equivalence.

Pagé c. Marier (December 2, 2021)

The lessor applies for leave to appeal from a decision of the Tribunal administratif du logement.

The lessor's application is dismissed.

The date of the decision is the starting point for calculating the time limit to appeal a decision of the Tribunal administratif du logement, not the date on which a party became aware of the decision.

The application for leave to appeal must therefore be served on the adverse party and filed in the office of the Tribunal within 30 days of the date of the decision.

The application for leave to appeal was filed after the expiry of the time limit. The Tribunal therefore lacks jurisdiction to rule on the issues the lessor wished to raise on appeal.

Société en commandite 461 Galt c. Diep (December 21, 2021)

The lessor asks the Tribunal:

• to declare that the immovables do not form a housing complex

or

• if they are part of a housing complex, to authorize it to sell the immovables separately

The Tribunal authorizes the lessor to alienate the immovables separately on the condition that it maintain access to laundry service for the lessees.

The lessor manages a row of six buildings, divided into three groups of two. The three groups of buildings are charged with two servitudes, one of passage and the other in favour of a company for the installation of posts and wires.

The immovables are a housing complex within the meaning of section 45 of the Act respecting the Administrative Housing Tribunal because the servitudes constitute an accessory in common.

The Tribunal administratif du logement must consider the effect that alienation would have on the lessees when granting authorization for the separate alienation of the immovables that form part of the housing complex. It may also impose conditions to ensure the protection of the lessees or the purchaser of the immovables.

Immeubles 2025-2125 Décarie inc. c. McDonough (January 13, 2022)

The lessor sought leave to appeal the Tribunal’s decision granting a rent reduction.

The Tribunal dismissed the lessor’s application.

The Tribunal’s decision may be appealed because the lessee’s application concerned primarily a rent reduction for the future, which is a declaratory application, not a small claims application within the meaning of section 91(2) of the Act respecting the Administrative Housing Tribunal.

The contested decision contains no error of law and raises no new or controversial issue that could justify granting the leave to appeal requested.

It is acknowledged that, even where a lessor who cannot provide the peaceful enjoyment of the leased premises due to superior force is not liable for the lessee’s prejudice, the lessee is still entitled to a rent reduction.

Mooncrest Investment inc. c. Almaleh (January 20, 2022)

The lessee asks the Tribunal to confirm that she may assign the lease on her dwelling or sublet her dwelling.

The Tribunal declines jurisdiction.

The parties are bound by a "proprietary lease". Pursuant to this lease, the lessee, who is a shareholder, is entitled to use the dwelling.

The lease binding the parties cannot be characterized as a lease of a dwelling within the meaning of section 28 of the Act respecting the Administrative Housing Tribunal because it does not provide for the measures to protect the lessee that normally apply in that type of lease.

Latif c. Corporation Les appartements 1700 (February 17, 2022)

The lessee applies for:

• the revocation of a decision by the Tribunal administratif du logement resiliating a lease and condemning her to pay $2,940 in recovery of rent

The lessor applies for:

• the dismissal of the lessee’s application
• an order prohibiting the lessee from filing new proceedings without the Tribunal’s authorization

The Tribunal:

• dismisses the lessee’s application
• prohibits the lessee from filing new proceedings without the Tribunal’s authorization

The lessee did not present a defence to the lessor's initial application. She was absent from the hearing that led to the termination of the lease and from the hearing on her application for revocation. She has not paid any rent since the original decision, so she owes $4,420 in unpaid rent.

According to the lessor, the lessee filed an application for revocation only to prevent the execution of the decision and thereby buy time to avoid eviction from the apartment. Previous decisions of the Tribunal indicate that the lessee has used this scheme in the past.

The lessee's application for revocation is frivolous and cannot succeed as no defence has been filed. In the circumstances, an order is made pursuant to s. 63.2 of the Act respecting the Administrative Housing Tribunal prohibiting the lessee from filing any further applications in this matter except with prior authorization.

Gershuny c. Bourque (March 18, 2022)

The lessor appeals from:

• a decision of the Tribunal administratif du logement dismissing her application for revocation

The lessor’s appeal is dismissed.

The lessor was reckless and careless in not filing a change of address with the Tribunal while a proceeding was underway, and several hearings had already taken place. This negligence precludes it from seeking a revocation of the decision rendered in its absence.

Section 89 of the Act respecting the Administrative Housing Tribunal provides that a party who has failed to inform the Tribunal of a change of address cannot apply to revoke a decision made in that party’s absence if the notice of hearing was sent to its previous address. This provision applies even if the party had reasons other than the non-receipt of the notice convening the party.

9335-5121 Québec inc. c. Paquet (April 27, 2022)

The lessor asks the Tribunal:

• to rule on the expediency of a temporary vacation by the lessees so that improvements and major work can be carried out in their dwellings and in the common areas of the immovable

The lessor’s application is dismissed.

The Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the lessor’s application with respect to each of the lessees. The essential nature of these applications is the authorization of and conditions for the temporary vacation by the lessees, including the length of time and the amount of the indemnity. The value of that indemnity, not the value of the work planned, is the meaning of “the interest of the applicant in the object of the application” in s. 28 of the Act respecting the Administrative Housing Tribunal.

The work planned by the lessor will change the form of the dwellings, which is prohibited by art. 1856 of the Civil Code of Québec. The lessor’s obligation not to change the form of the dwelling must take precedence over its property and management rights in the immovable.

In addition, the notice of vacation is not valid because it does not provide a specific or complete description of the “nature of the work” that the lessor intends to carry out.

3485 Papineau Investments Ltd. c. Ouali (May 11, 2022)

The lessee asks the Tribunal to order the lessor to give him access to his dwelling.

The Tribunal declines jurisdiction.

The Tribunal administratif du logement does not have jurisdiction to hear the lessee's application to order access to the dwelling.

The lease binding the parties is not a lease of a dwelling within the meaning of art. 1892 of the Civil Code of Québec because it is the lease of a room:

• situated in the principal residence of the lessor, if not more than two rooms are rented or offered for rent;

and

• if the room has neither a separate entrance from the outside nor sanitary facilities separate from those used by the lessor.

Schumacher c. Gagnon (May 20, 2022)

The lessees, who intend to seek leave to appeal from the Tribunal's decisions resiliating their lease and ordering their eviction from the dwelling, apply for:

• a suspension of the provisional execution of these decisions

The provisional execution of the Tribunal's decisions is suspended during the proceedings on appeal.

The Tribunal ordered the provisional execution of a decision in which it resiliated the lessees' lease and ordered their eviction from the dwelling.

The criteria to suspend the execution of a decision by the Tribunal ordering the eviction of a lessee are limited to those enumerated in s. 94 of the Act respecting the Administrative Housing Tribunal, that is:

• the existence of serious prejudice;

and

• an application for leave to appeal has been filed.

The lessees have shown that they have met these criteria:

• they have filed an application for leave to appeal from the Tribunal's decisions;
• one of the lessees would suffer serious prejudice if the execution of the decision ordering his eviction from the dwelling were not suspended given his age (75 years old), his state of health, and the fact that there is currently a housing shortage in Montreal.

Khoury c. Saint-Patrick (June 23, 2022)

The lessor appeals from two judgments dismissing its applications based on a procedural defect.

The appeal is allowed.

The mandatary who represents a legal person must provide the Tribunal with a written mandate. This requirement applies to the filing of an application and to representation during a hearing. A corporate resolution is not always required to prove the mandate.

Some officers of the legal person, such as its president, executive director, or someone in a similar post, have an implicit mandate to represent the legal person and institute proceedings on its behalf.

In such cases, the mandatary must prove the nature of the position he or she holds within the legal person. This proof can be made by filing a document (an excerpt from the register of enterprises, for example) when the application is filed at the hearing, or even subsequently.

Hazelview Property Services inc. c. El Wahmani (July 21, 2022)

The lessee asks that the lessor's application to repossess the dwelling be declared abusive under s. 63.2 of the Act respecting the Administrative Housing Tribunal. He claims:

• $1,500 in moral damages
• $5,000 in punitive damages
• $1,500 in reimbursement of his legal fees

The Tribunal declares that the lessor's application is abusive and grants the lessee:

• $300 in moral damages
• $700 in punitive damages
• $1,500 for his legal fees

The application to repossess the dwelling is the climax of a series of proceedings brought by the lessor before the Tribunal to evict the lessee and repossess the dwelling.

The lessor's abusive proceeding causes moral damages to the lessee, who experienced stress, anxiety, and inconvenience, which were multiplied by the social context and his difficulty finding affordable hosing.

Because of his blameworthy and reckless conduct and the abusive nature of his proceeding, the lessor is condemned to pay punitive damages and reimburse the legal fees incurred by the lessee to defend himself.

Maurin c. Julien (September 30, 2022)

The lessee seeks:

• a declaration that the lessor’s proceeding seeking the resiliation of the lease is abusive
• $5,000 in moral damages
• $3,308 in reimbursement of lawyers’ fees

The lessor subsequently withdrew its application for resiliation of the lease.

The Tribunal awards the lessee:

• $2,000 in moral damages
• $3,000 in lawyers’ fees

Section 63.2 of the Act respecting the Administrative Housing Tribunal authorizes the Tribunal to rule that a proceeding is abusive or dilatory and to award damages to compensate for any resulting injury.

The Tribunal retains jurisdiction to hear the lessee’s application, even if the lessor subsequently withdrew its own application.

The lessor’s application was abusive within the meaning of section 63.2 of the Act. The lessor initiated a proceeding to resiliate the lease a few days after receiving a complaint against the lessee, without verifying whether the complaint was well founded, and without worrying about the consequences for the lessee.

The lessee is entitled to moral damages for the trouble, hardship, and inconvenience resulting from the abusive proceeding brought against her by the lessor, and to the reimbursement of a portion of her lawyers’ fees.

Laporte c. 9191-1032 Québec inc. (October 24, 2022)

Interlocutory decision on the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to hear the application of the lessees, who oppose an eviction proceeding in anticipation of the demolition of the building.

The Tribunal has the jurisdiction to hear the application.

Under section 32 of the Act respecting the Administrative Housing Tribunal, the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to rule on an objection to a notice of eviction in anticipation of the demolition of a building when authorization to demolish is not required by a by-law adopted under section 148.0.2 of the Act respecting land use planning and development (chapter A-19.1).

The Ville de Mont-Laurier, where the building is located, has adopted such a by-law, but residential buildings containing three dwellings or fewer are not subject to it, such that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the application.

Since the coming into force of the Act to amend the Cultural Heritage Act in 2021, all municipalities are required to adopt and maintain in force a by-law regarding the demolition of immovables on a heritage site, which is not the case of the building where the lessees’ dwelling is located.

Beaudry c. Guénette (November 28, 2022)

The lessors ask the Tribunal to:

• authorize the testimony of the lawyer who represented the lessees during the conciliation process
• ratify the agreement the parties reached following the conciliation process

The Tribunal:

• authorizes the testimony of the lessees’ lawyer
• dismisses the lessors’ application

The principle of the confidentiality of the conciliation process is not absolute. It has certain exceptions, such as when it is necessary to prove the existence of an agreement or its terms. This makes it possible to prevent parties from changing their minds and eluding the agreement by arguing that the process was confidential.

Neither the lawyer’s testimony nor the draft agreement prepared by the conciliator establishes that the parties reached an agreement.

Cordeiro c. Sauriol (December 22, 2022)

The insurer who compensated the lessees after an incident causing damage in the dwelling asks that the lessor reimburse it for:

• $1,389 in material damages for the property of the lessees
• $2,894 in material damages for the property stored by the lessee’s daughter in the dwelling

The Tribunal awards the insurer:

• $617 in material damages for the lessees’ property

The insurer, subrogated to the rights of the lessees, compensated the lessees’ daughter for damage caused to property she had stored in the dwelling, even though she did not live there.

The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear this application. This is an extracontractual liability proceeding that the lessees’ daughter could not bring before the Tribunal. This is also the case for the insurer, who does not have more rights than the person to whose rights it is subrogated.

The lessor is not required to pay the replacement value of the lessees’ property and is not bound by the property assessment of the insurance company.

Desjardins assurances générales inc. c. Vocisano (January 9, 2023)

The lessees seeks:

• the revocation of a decision of the Tribunal resiliating their lease and condemning them to pay an amount in recovery of rent
• an order prohibiting publication and to seal documents

The Tribunal:

• grants the lessee’s application for revocation of judgment
• makes an order prohibiting publication of the lessees’ identities and contact information
• orders that the recording of the hearing is to remain confidential

The lessees proved the existence of a serious risk to their integrity and safety that justifies rendering an order of confidentiality. This order, however, is limited to prohibiting the disclosure of their identities and contact information.

The lessees proved that they had a valid reason to explain their absence from the hearing and that they had serious arguments against the lessor’s application, such that their application for revocation is justified.

A c. Caprera (January 20, 2023)

The lessees present:

• an application for judicial review of a judgment of the Court of Québec dismissing their application for leave to appeal from a decision of the Tribunal on the ground that it was filed outside the time limit.

The Superior Court:

• concludes that the time limit to appeal was respected
• dismisses the lessees’ application

The starting point for calculating the time limit to appeal a decision of the Tribunal is the date on which a party became aware of the decision, not the date on which the decision was rendered.

The Court of Québec rendered a reasonable decision in determining that there were no grounds to allow the appeal from the Tribunal’s decision.

Cayer-Boucher c. Cour du Québec (March 8, 2023)

The lessee presents:

• an application for judicial review of a judgment of the Court of Québec dismissing her application for leave to appeal from a decision of the Tribunal.

The application for judicial review is dismissed.

The lessee attended the hearing before the Tribunal with a laptop to be assisted by her lawyer. However, the Tribunal had refused, on two occasions, to allow the lawyer to attend the hearing by videoconference. The judge refused this manner of proceeding and the lessee, after discussing with her lawyer, declared that she could represent herself.

The Court of Québec determined that it was a case management decision that had not infringed the lessee’s right to be heard. The Court also concluded that the judge had provided the lessee with all the support and necessary accommodations and that the rules of natural justice had been respected.

The Court of Québec rendered a reasonable decision in concluding that the issues raised by the lessee were not new, serious, of general interest, or sufficiently controversial to justify appellate intervention.

English c. Cour du Québec (January 30, 2023)

The lessee applies for:

• the lessor to be ordered not to give out her telephone number without her consent
• the lessor to be ordered to comply with the time limit to have access to the dwelling and to guarantee the full enjoyment of her dwelling
• a rent reduction of $100 a month
• $100 in moral damages
• $100 in material damages

(monthly rent of $620)

The lessee’s application is dismissed.

The Tribunal administratif du logement does not have jurisdiction to render an order prohibiting the lessor from giving the lessee’s telephone number to a third party.

The lessee has not established that her peaceful enjoyment of the leased premises had been disturbed so as to warrant an order for specific performance, a rent reduction, or the awarding of damages.

The sound of footsteps or the sound caused by a rocking chair from a dwelling constitutes normal annoyances that must be tolerated, particularly in an immovable built over 80 years ago that has never been soundproofed and whose floors are made of wood.

Legault c. Castonguay (February 6, 2023)

The lessor, who has filed applications for the fixing of rent in 13 files, applies for:

• release from his failure to notify the RN form
• extension of the time limit to file the RN form

The lessor’s application is granted.

Section 59 of the Act respecting the Administrative Housing Tribunal set out two conditions on which a party may be released from his or her failure to file the RN form in the prescribed time limit, i.e., (1) the existence of a reasonable cause; and (2) the absence of prejudice to the other party.

(1) The lessor should not be penalized for the error committed by his lawyer to whom he had entrusted the management and conduct of his files.

(2) The lessee’s eventual loss of the benefit of renewing the lease under the same conditions cannot be considered a prejudice within the meaning of section 59.

Manikis c. Adam George (January 18, 2023)

The applicant seeks:

• authorization to amend the application he filed in his own name before the Tribunal to replace it with the name of the rental company as the applicant

The Tribunal refuses to allow the amendment.

The applicant has no contractual relationship with the lessee. He therefore did not have the required legal interest to file an application against the lessee before the Tribunal.

The applicant and the rental company have distinct legal personalities. The application seeks to change the applicant and not merely to correct an error in the designation of the applicant.

The application is inadmissible and cannot be corrected through an amendment, even though the company’s name includes part of its president’s name.

Gaumond c. Chedid (March 9, 2023)

The lessor applies for:

• $1,085 in recovery of rent

The Tribunal declines jurisdiction.

The lessee entered into a contract with a private seniors’ residence for the occupancy of a room and the provision of services for a short convalescence stay.

The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the application because the contract entered into between the parties is not a residential lease.

The evidence does not establish that, at the time the contract was entered into, the parties intended for the room to become the lessee’s long-term residence.

9163-7405 Québec inc. c. Blais (March 29, 2023)

The assignee-lessee applied for resiliation of the lease.

She claimed the following from the assignors (former lessees):

• $6,000 in damages
• $3,000 in moral damages
• $3,000 in punitive damages

The Tribunal declined jurisdiction.

The assignee-lessee refused to take possession of the dwelling, finding that it was unfit for habitation.

She faulted the former lessees for violating their contractual obligations because they failed to disclose essential information (cockroach infestation) and the dwelling was not in good habitable condition.

The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is based on the existence of a lease of a dwelling. In this case, the lease binds solely the assignee-lessee and the lessor. Because there was an assignment, there is no longer a contractual relationship between the assignee-lessee and the former lessees.

Boukili En Hassani c. Choualhi (June 15, 2023)

The parties, whose relationship was personal and romantic, cohabited in the immovable belonging to the applicant. The applicant brought an application for damages and an injunction, with the aim of putting an end to the cohabitation.

The defendant argued that the Superior Court does not have jurisdiction to hear the dispute.

The Superior Court:

• declined jurisdiction
• concluded that the Tribunal administratif du logement was the only tribunal with jurisdiction to hear the dispute

The Superior Court has exclusive jurisdiction to hear applications for injunctions. However, aside from the defendant’s eviction from the residence, the single application for injunction seeks to prevent the defendant from contacting the applicant, which is insufficient to conclude that it is an injunctive proceeding.

The Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction to hear the dispute between the parties, which concerns the existence of a lease of a dwelling and the rights that flow from it.

The Act respecting the Administrative Housing Tribunal confers on the Tribunal all the powers that allow it to exercise its full jurisdiction in this respect, which includes the jurisdiction to rule on the validity of a lease of a dwelling, to evict a lessee, and to render orders for damages to compensate for any situation that may arise from the existence of such a lease.

Lamarche c. Doyon (May 2, 2023)

The lessor applied for leave to appeal from two decisions of the Tribunal that upheld the objections of two lessees to notices of eviction based on a change in the destination of their respective dwellings.

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal found that the lessor had not established that its plan to enlarge the lessees’ dwellings was feasible.

This conclusion was based on the assessment of the evidence as a whole.

An appeal is not an opportunity for the lessor to fill a gap in the evidence adduced at first instance.

The lessor was represented by counsel at the hearing.

Section 63 of the Act respecting the Administrative Housing Tribunal did not require the judge to provide assistance with any deficiency in the proof of the existence of an agreement with the occupants of the other dwellings affected by its enlargement project.

The duty of a judge of the Tribunal to provide equitable and impartial assistance must be analyzed in the context of the case and in consideration of the capacity of the parties, their level of education, their understanding of the issues in dispute, the impact of the decision on their rights and obligations, and whether they are represented by counsel.

It is a discretionary power.

9416-4654 Québec inc. c. Al-Khoury (June 16, 2023)

The lessor appeals from a judgment of the Superior Court concluding that it had jurisdiction to hear an application for injunction.

The appeal is allowed.

The Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the dispute.

The dispute arose from the existence of a lease of a dwelling and arises from the lessor’s wish to change the destination of the immovable that it purchased in December 2021 and operated as a private seniors’ residence (PSR) and turn it into a rental building.

The lessee objected to this change and, acting on his own behalf and on behalf of the 56 other residents who have mandated him to do so, brought an application for injunction before the Superior Court.

The Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction to hear the matters listed in section 28 of the Act respecting the Administrative Housing Tribunal and any disputes related thereto, to the exclusion of any other court or tribunal, including the Superior Court. This jurisdiction extends to all questions likely to be raised by such disputes, and they should not be distinguished in an attempt to evade this jurisdiction in favour of the courts of justice.

955 René-Lévesque Est c. Jetté (June 11, 2023)

The lessor applied for:

• eviction of the lessee

OR

• fixing of the rent
• recovery of rent ($8,750)

The Tribunal declined jurisdiction.

The occupation of the dwelling by the janitor of the building without being required to pay rent is accessory to his contract of employment.

Pursuant to section 28 of the Act respecting the Administrative Housing Tribunal, the Tribunal is not competent to rule on a dispute between the parties that concerns such a contract.

Fiducie familiale Fedida c. Freilech (April 5, 2023)

The lessor appealed from a decision of the Tribunal that:

• allowed the lessee’s application for revocation of judgment
• dismissed her application to recover rent and resiliate the lease

The appeal was allowed.

Where a lease and a promise to purchase coexist, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is established on the basis of the actual dispute between the parties without it being necessary to determine which of the contracts is accessory to the other.

In this case, even though the parties were bound by an option to purchase, the Tribunal had jurisdiction to rule on the dispute because it arose from the lessee’s failure to pay her rent.

The Tribunal erred by imputing to unpaid rent the deposit the lessee had given the lessor under an option to purchase. It could not impute the payment as it did to a debt that had not yet become due.

Onuekwa c. Scott (June 22, 2023)

Lessee’s application for disavowal.

The Tribunal declined jurisdiction.

The lessee applied for the disavowal of her lawyer because the lawyer made a settlement offer without her consent that was accepted by the lessor.

The settlement between the parties is a transaction within the meaning of article 2631 of the Civil Code of Québec and, like a judgment, has the authority of res judicata between the parties.

This transaction had the effect of bringing the dispute before the Tribunal to an end.

The application for disavowal should have been filed before the Court of Québec.

Mullally c. Alloul (May 17, 2023)

The lessee appealed from a decision of the Tribunal allowing the lessor’s application to resiliate the lease and condemning her to pay $1,500 in rent arrears.

The appeal is dismissed.

The purpose of the decision in which the Tribunal determined that the rent had been increased upon renewal of the lease because the lessee had failed to respond within the prescribed time period to the notice of amendment sent by the lessor, was not to fix the rent.

The Court of Quebec therefore had jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

Leave to appeal was granted to determine whether there was res judicata between two decisions of the Tribunal.

The presumption of authority of res judicata did not apply because one of the two decisions was the subject of an application for revocation of judgment that had not yet been heard.

Pierre-Louis c. 9185-4844 Québec inc. (July 12, 2023)

The lessor applied for:

• the fixing of rent

(monthly rent of $662)

The Tribunal:

• allowed the lessor’s application, which was not expired

The monthly rent was fixed at $733.

The lessor mandated a bailiff to notify the application to fix rent and the RN form to the lessee.

Two reports of service were filed in the record. According to the bailiff’s second report, copies of the application to modify the lease and the RN form were affixed to the door of the lessee’s residence because no one answered.

For service by bailiff leaving a proceeding at a location to be considered valid, it must prove that a prior attempt to serve or notify was made.

In this case, there are minutes indicating that the bailiff made such an attempt.

Moreover, in the case where a document served is left in a mailbox or on under the door, there is a presumption of fact that the addressee received it.

Since the notification of the application and the RN form was validly done, the Tribunal fixed the rent.

Monthly rent was increased by $71.13.

Cheung c. Mestiri (May 26, 2023)