The lessor seeks the resiliation of the lease.

The lease is resiliated.

The lessee is bound to inform the lessor of the arrival of a new occupant (article 18 of the By-law respecting the conditions for the leasing of dwellings in low-rental housing).

Renting a dwelling on a day-to-day basis through Airbnb constitutes a change of purpose of the building.

Such rentals create additional risks for the lessor.

Office municipal d’habitation de Sept-Îles c. Jomphe (June 26, 2018)

The lessee seeks:

• $14,905 in damages
• that the lessor be ordered to rent to him the dwelling he lived in before the fire

The lessee cannot return to his dwelling following the fire.

No amount is awarded to the lessee for the damage he suffered as a result of the fire.

The fire resulted in the complete loss of the building.

The object of the lease, i.e. the dwelling, was completely destroyed.

Notification of abandonment not required to be exempt from paying rent.

No liability on the part of the lessor for damage suffered by the lessee as a result of the fire.

Fire caused by another lessee – superior force.

Primeau c. 9287-2878 Québec inc. (January 14, 2019)

The lessor seeks:

• authorization to repossess the lessee's dwelling as a residence for his two daughters, as of July 1, 2019

The administrative judge:

• dismissed the lessor's application because it does not comply with the criteria set out in article 1963 of the Civil Code of Québec

The notice of repossession contains an error in date since it specifies that the lessor intends to repossess the dwelling at the end of the lease, i.e., January 1, 2019.

It is not a simple clerical error, because the law requires that notice be given at least six months prior to the expiry of the lease.

The lessor has not convinced the Tribunal that his application is not a pretext for other purposes, considering in particular the difficult relationship between the lessor and lessee and the short duration of the occupancy.

Felizaire c. Assio (January 31, 2019)

The lessors apply for:

• authorization to repossess the lessee’s dwelling as a residence for their daughter as of July 1

The lessors are authorized to repossess the dwelling.

The lessee is awarded indemnities of $1,900 for moving expenses and $100 for the cost of connecting to various services.

The fact that the lessee paid rent below market value is not a factor prohibiting repossession of the dwelling, although it might lead the court to question the lessor’s motive.

The Régie du logement may not award damages to the lessee in any form or under any head whatsoever (e.g., length of occupation, roots in the neighbourhood, time lost in finding another dwelling, painting expenses, etc.).

The indemnity must be limited to actual moving expenses.

To determine the indemnity, the Régie must consider recent applicable case law, the size of the dwelling, the number of occupants, the location of the dwelling (on ground floor or on an upper floor with no elevator) or the presence of specific belongings generating additional moving costs (e.g., a piano).

It is well known that moving costs during the peak period between June 24 and July 7 are almost twice as high as those regularly charged.

Alcantara c. Gauthier (February 7, 2019)

The lessor seeks:

• authorization to repossess the lessees' dwelling as a residence for himself

The administrative judge:

• authorized the lessor to repossess the dwelling
• granted an indemnity of $1,500 to the lessees for moving expenses

The lessor proved that he in fact intends to repossess the dwelling as a residence for himself and that it is not a pretext for other purposes.

It is not necessary for the dwelling to be occupied on a continuous basis for the repossession to be considered permanent.

The lessor may choose to live in it intermittently like in a pied-à-terre or part-time, provided that the occupancy is not temporary.

The lessor does not have any other 5 ½ dwellings that would be available.

Crocco c. Perron (February 19, 2019)

The lessor seeks:

• resiliation of the lease
• recovery of unpaid rent

The administrative judge:

• renews the order rendered against the lessee for a period of 24 months

The lessor accepted the late payment of rent without reservation or protest.

The lessor has therefore implicitly waived her right to resiliate the lease for failure to comply with the order.

Tremblay Gattillo c. Fajardo (March 18, 2019)

The lessor seeks:

• authorization to repossess the lessee's dwelling as a residence for herself

The administrative judge:

• authorized the lessor to repossess the dwelling
• granted an indemnity of $3,500 to the lessee for moving expenses

The lessor is 80 years old.

The purpose of article 1959.1 of the Civil Code of Québec is to protect seniors, under certain conditions, in the context of an application for repossession of dwelling or eviction.

Despite the lessee's age (70 years old) and the fact that he has been living in the dwelling for 10 years, the lessor may obtain repossession due to her own age and her intention to use it as residence for herself.

Dubois c. Aspell (April 18, 2019)

The lessor applies for:

• authorization to repossess the lessee’s dwelling as a residence for the lessor’s 84-year-old uncle, of whom he is the main support

The lessor is authorized to repossess the dwelling.

The lessee is awarded an indemnity of $1,800 for moving expenses.

The lessor is the only member of his uncle’s family living in Canada.

The terms “support” and “main support” must be given broad and general meanings.

The lessor has demonstrated that the purpose of the repossession he wishes to exercise:

• is to have his uncle reside close to him to provide for his moral, psychological, family and social needs
• is not to evict the lessee
• is not to constitute a pretext for other purposes

Ignelzi c. Girard (April 23, 2019)

The lessee objected to the eviction notice.

The lessee’s objection to the eviction notice was granted.

The lessor had to establish that he really intended to enlarge the rented premises and that it was permitted by law.

The seriousness of an initiative (feasibility) can be established by a thorough analysis of the financial framework, the preparation of plans, the expertise of professionals, the cost estimate of such a construction or obtaining the required permits.

The lessor did not establish the structural feasibility of his project or its compliance with the applicable regulatory standards for the work to be undertaken, as no complete plan was submitted to the municipality.

It would be unreasonable to force the eviction of the lessee while the enlargement proposed by the lessor is still random, hypothetical, uncertain and undetermined.

Doyle-Gosselin c. 9299-2551 Québec inc. (April 25, 2019)

The lessor applies for authorization to repossess the lessee’s dwelling.

The lessor’s application is dismissed.

In a notice of repossession, the date fixed for the dwelling to be repossessed, the name of the beneficiary and, where applicable, the degree of relationship or the bond between the beneficiary and the lessor shall be indicated (art. 1961 C.C.Q.).

The words “for personal use” in the notice do not inform the lessee of identity of the beneficiary of the repossession of the dwelling.

If the lessee refuses to leave the dwelling, the lessor must file his application within one month after the refusal (art. 1963 C.C.Q.).

The lessor’s application was filed after the deadline.

Arseneau c. Gagnon (April 26, 2019)

The lessor applies for:

• recovery of unpaid rent at the time of the lessees’ departure on July 25, 2017
• damages for loss of rent (four months from August to November) and cleaning of the dwelling ($200)
• $1,015 indemnity for re-leasing (energy, screening and advertising costs)
• $25 banking fees

(monthly rent is $1,100)

The lessor’s application is granted in part.

The notice sent by the lessee is valid and he is condemned to pay the lessor:

• $2,479 in rent until resiliation of the lease on September 7, 2017
• $200 for the cost of cleaning the dwelling
• $5 in bank fees for the lessee’s cheque that was returned because of insufficient funds (actual prejudice)

Article 1974 C.C.Q. authorizes a lessee who suffers from a handicap to be released from his or her lease for a dwelling that he or she can no longer occupy because of the handicap.

The lessee must give two months’ prior notice and provide a medical certificate.

The lessee could no longer live in the dwelling because he has to use steps to access it.

The lease was officially resiliated two months after the notice was sent to the lessor on September 7, 2017.

9269-6111 Québec inc. c. Faguy (April 30, 2019)

The lessors apply for:

• rent to be fixed
• the lease to be modified to prohibit lessees from smoking tobacco and cannabis in their dwelling and in the common areas of the building

The agreement between the parties increasing monthly rent by $10 is recognized.

The application to modify the lease is dismissed.

An application to modify the conditions of a lease under art. 1947 C.C.Q. may not be made to penalize lessees for the non-performance of a contractual obligation (in this case, the allegations of nuisance caused by secondary cannabis smoke).

When lessees breach their obligations, the lessor has recourses, including that under art. 1863 C.C.Q.

Adding a clause to the lease to prohibit smoking in the dwelling and common areas of the building infringes on the rights of the lessees, who have a right to privacy, to remain in the premises.

Thiboutot c. Morin-Courchesne (May 23, 2019)

The lessee seeks:

• a ruling on the reasons for the refusal
• a ruling on the validity of the assignment

The lessor seeks:

• the resiliation of the lease
• the recovery of a balance for May 2019 ($178.06)

The lease is resiliated retroactively to May 1, 2019, the fault lying with the lessor.

The lessee has the right to assign the lease, and the lessor cannot circumvent that right by offering to resiliate the lease instead.

The lessor must take the necessary steps to obtain relevant information in order to make her decision.

The lessor did not establish a serious reason for her refusal.

The candidate found another dwelling due to the lessor’s unjustified refusal to authorize the assignment.

Laflamme c. Gestion Reluc inc. (June 6, 2019)

The lessee’s insurer seeks $2,769 in damages from the lessor.

The Régie awards the insurer:

• $1,091 in damages

In order to dispose of a thing considered to be forgotten, the lessor must give 90 days’ notice.

If the thing cannot be sold or given away, the lessor can dispose of it.

The lessor committed a fault for which he is liable by not complying with articles 944 and 945 C.C.Q.

The lessee is not without fault: although she was not expected to move in until July 20, she did not inform the lessor that she was moving in some of her belongings before that date. She must therefore bear some responsibility, which the Régie set at 20%.

Seeing that the things thrown out were purchased by the lessee six years prior to the events, at a total cost of $1,818, the Régie set their depreciation at 25%.

Promutuel Chaudière-Appalaches (Plante) c. Location Laitram inc. (June 6, 2019)

The lessor applies for an order forcing lessees to dispose of their dogs, failing which the lease would be resiliated.

The lessor’s applications are dismissed.

To amend the conditions of the lessees’ lease, the lessor should have given them notice to this effect within the prescribed time limit (art. 1942 C.C.Q.), which she did not do.

The lessor could not ask the lessees to sign a document stating that they agreed to the amendment to their lease without being able to refuse it.

Office municipal d’habitation de la Plaine de Bellechasse c. Therrien (June 11, 2019)

The lessee seeks:

• $100 reduction in the monthly rent

(monthly rent is $350, including electricity)

• $5,000 for moral damages
• $9,900 in damages (loss of income)

The lessor applies for:

• resiliation of the lease
• $13,709 in damages (energy and advertising costs and loss of income)

The Régie awards the lessee:

• $1,440, which represents a rent reduction of $60 per month for the period during which he paid the electricity costs, i.e., from June 1, 2017, to May 14, 2019

The rent reduction applies as of June 1, 2019 and will continue to apply as long as the lessee pays electricity in his dwelling.

Even though the lessor may be dissatisfied with the lessee’s energy consumption, he cannot unilaterally, and without entitlement, modify the conditions of the lease and require the lessee to pay for the electricity costs in his dwelling from now on.

The lessor’s mere assertion that the lessee’s use of cannabis causes him to lose lessees is insufficient to grant his application to resiliate the lease.

Lafleur c. Thiffault (July 3, 2019)

The lessee seeks:

• $10,000 for moral damages
• $10,000 in punitive damages

The Régie awards the lessee:

• $3,500 for moral damages
• $4,500 in punitive damages, which represents the increase in the lessee’s rent for three years

The lessor’s good faith is assessed at the time the notice of repossession of the dwelling was sent and throughout this process.

The lessor did not explain why his plan for the repossession had failed.

He did not seek the authorization of the court to rent out the dwelling again, contrary to what is provided for under art. 1970 C.C.Q.

The lessee proved that the repossession of his dwelling was in bad faith.

Letalien c. Leduc (July 3, 2019)

The lessor applies for:

• the lessee’s eviction

The lessor’s application is dismissed because the lease resiliation agreement is null.

A party’s consent to an agreement must be free and enlightened (art. 1399 C.C.Q.).

By failing to remind the lessee that he was entitled to maintain occupancy in the premises and suggesting that he could be evicted from the dwelling the next day with the assistance of the police, the lessor deliberately induced and provoked fear in the lessee to get him to sign the lease resiliation agreement.

The lessee’s consent was therefore vitiated by fear.

Freundlich c. Simeon (July 5, 2019)

The lessees apply for:

• resiliation of the lease, retroactively to July 1, 2014
• $8,000 for moral damages
• $5,084 for material damages
• $790 for reimbursement of an overpayment made to the lessors (security deposit and background check of identity, solvency and notoriety)

The lessors apply for:

• $8,250 for re-rental indemnity representing the rent for August 2014 to June 2015
• $1,771 for material damage (advertising and energy costs)
• $500 for moral damages

The Régie awards the lessees:

• $2,500 for moral damages
• $1,470 for material damages
• $790 for reimbursement of payments made at the time of signing the lease

The lease is resiliated as of July 1, 2014, due to the lessors’ fault.

None of the work that the lessors undertook to carry out at the time of signing the lease had yet been completed by the time the lessees were to take possession of the dwelling on July 1, 2014.

The lessors’ failure to honour their undertakings made it impossible to use certain areas of the dwelling or substantially reduced their use, which caused the lessees serious prejudice.

The fact that the lessee ended up homeless on July 1 had a serious impact on her overall health and well-being, and her distress turned into depression.

Bourré-Carvajal c. Latour (July 10, 2019)

The lessor applies for the resiliation of the lease.

The lease is resiliated.

The cultivation of cannabis in the dwelling for about twelve years constitutes an illegal activity and a change in destination of the dwelling because an entire floor was used for this production.

The lessor has suffered serious injury due to the damage caused to the building.

Milot c. Belzile (September 3, 2019)

The lessee contests the decision rendered by the Régie du logement resiliating her lease.

The Régie’s decision is upheld and the lease is resiliated.

The lessee, through repeated, excessive and often unfounded complaints, abused her right to denounce her dwelling’s defects.

The lessee breached her obligation to act in good faith.

The lessee’s incessant complaints caused the lessor serious prejudice.

Bonhomme c. Nguyen Luu (December 3, 2019)

The lessee applies for:

• material damages
• moral damages
• punitive damages

The Régie awards the lessee:

• $923 in storage costs for his property
• $1,000 in moral damages
• $2,000 in punitive damages

The lessor had the obligation to deliver the dwelling on the date fixed in the lease or on the date agreed on with the lessee.

The lessor could not terminate the lease because he was concerned that the lessee would not pay his rent due to his mental health issues.

The lessee was deprived of the enjoyment of his dwelling.

Jefferson c. Huang (December 9, 2019)

The lessees apply for:

• damages
• moral damages
• punitive damages

The Régie awards the lessees:

• $4,776 for the difference in rent that they had to pay for 12 months
• $3,000 in moral damages
• $2,000 in punitive damages

A lessor may repossess a dwelling if he or she wishes to change its destination, which must be done in good faith and must not constitute a pretext.

The lessors were acting in good faith when they signed the notice of eviction but were not acting in good faith throughout the process because they knew prior to entering into the eviction agreement with the lessees that they would not be able to carry out their plan.

Therefore, the lessees were illegally evicted.

Jones c. Minguy Bédard (December 12, 2019)

The lessors seek authorization to repossess the dwelling to use as a residence for the parents of one of the lessors.

The application is dismissed.

The lessor’s parents are not living in Canada and no application for permanent residence has yet been submitted the immigration authorities in relation to them.

The lessors’ plan is too embryonic and based on factors that are too uncertain to authorize the repossession.

Baccouche c. Chiab (December 18, 2019)

The lessor applies for $3,010, i.e. 7 months’ rent (the monthly rent is $430).

The Régie notes the resiliation of the lease and awards the lessor $1,290, i.e. 3 months’ rent.

The law authorizes a lessee to resiliate his or her lease before its termination if he or she can no longer occupy the dwelling because of a handicap.

The lessee must give two months’ prior notice and provide a medical certificate.

In this file, the lessee has demonstrated that she has health issues but it is not a handicap that prevents her from occupying her dwelling.

Her departure therefore constitutes an abandonment.

Résidence Le Baillairgé c. Corbin (January 6, 2020)

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

The application is dismissed.

The lessor served the lessee with a notice of her intention to repossess his dwelling at the expiry of the lease to use as a residence for her brother.

However, in the application for authorization filed before the Régie du logement, the lessor indicated that she wished to repossess the dwelling as a residence for herself.

The fact that the beneficiary indicated in the notice of repossession is not the same person as the one stated in the application for authorization is fatal to the lessor’s application.

Jeanty c. Saucier (January 21, 2020)

The lessee asks for the dismissal of lessor's application to repossess the dwelling because it is inadmissible.

The lessor's application is inadmissible and is dismissed.

The lessor cannot repossess the dwelling for herself because she is not the sole owner of the duplex in which the dwelling is situated.

The lessor purchased the immovable in undivided co-ownership with her sister. The indivision agreement in which they give each other the exclusive enjoyment and use of the two separate parts of the immovable does not change its characterization as an undivided co-ownership.

McElroy c. Vilnis* (March 25, 2020)

*Leave to appeal refused (C.Q., 2022-09-06) 460-80-001635-224.

The Tribunal must rule on:

• the validity of a notice of modification of the lease
• the validity of a notice of refusal of the increase and renewal of the lease

The notice of the modification of the lease is declared invalid.

The notice of the refusal of the rent increase and renewal of the lease is valid.

The Tribunal grants the lessors one month following the decision to file an application to fix the rent.

Although the law does not require the lessor to provide a choice of answers on the notice of modification of the lease, if the lessor chooses to do so, the notice must be clear and offer all the possible options so as not to mislead the lessee, which is the case here.

In addition, the notice sent to the lessee did not mention any time limit within which to reply, contrary to what is required by law.

Quevillon Charbonneau c. Fortin (July 2, 2020)

The lessees are appealing a decision of the Régie du logement finding that their lease was not renewed and ordering their eviction from the leased premises.

The appeal is dismissed.

The lessor can propose a modification of the conditions of the lease by sending a notice, which the lessee can accept or refuse.

The lessee who does not reply to the lessor’s notice of modification of the lease within one month of receiving it is presumed to have accepted the proposed modifications and the lease is therefore renewed under the new conditions by operation of law.

In the case of multiple lessees, each lessee must in principle receive a notice of modification of the conditions of the lease and reply to it.

However, when the evidence establishes that one of the co-lessees gave the other the mandate to act on his or her behalf, the reply to the notice is therefore considered to have been given by both lessees, which is the case here.

Diallo c. Dagenais (August 10, 2020)

The lessee objects to the change of the destination of the leased premises.

The lessee’s objection is granted.

The lessor wishes to remove the dwelling from the rental market to convert it into a place of business.

The loss of the residential nature of the dwelling contravenes the zoning by-law in force.

Lombardo c. 9253-7703 Québec inc. (August 14, 2020)

The lessor applies for:

• resiliation of the lease
• recovery of rent

The lease is resiliated and the Tribunal awards the lessor:

• $16,000 in unpaid rent

The lessor, an Anglophone who speaks in an approximate French at best, made an error in translation in her effort to provide the lessee with a notice of the modification of the lease in French.

The lessor therefore sent a second notice to the lessee to correct her error in the drafting of the first notice concerning the $44 rent increase, so that the monthly rent of $2,250 was increased to $2,294.

An exception may be made to the principle that the successive notice does not create a right when the purpose of the notice is to correct a clerical error, which is the case here.

Lee c. Choko (August 19, 2020)

The lessor applies for:

• an order declaring the lease resiliated
• an order evicting the lessee

(monthly rent is $520)

The lessor’s application is dismissed.

The Tribunal declares the notice of renewal and modification of the lease invalid and that the lease has been renewed under the same conditions.

The lessee sent a notice of renewal and modification of the lease to the lessee. It was written in French although the lease is in English. The notice of renewal must be written in the same language as the lease.

The text of the notice did not allow the lessee to indicate that he was refusing the proposed modification of rent but that he nevertheless wanted to renew the lease.

The notice did not indicate that the lessee could refuse the proposed modification within one month of receiving it.

Since the notice of renewal and modification of the lease does not comply with the law and this non-compliance causes the lessees injury, it is declared invalid.

6609 Parc c. Quinn (October 7, 2020)

Each lessee asked the Tribunal :

• to cancel the lease resiliation agreement that was entered into with the lessor

The lessor asked the Tribunal :

• to recognize this agreement and order the eviction of the lessee

The Tribunal cancelled the lease resiliation agreements.

Lessees are entitled to have the lease resiliation agreement that they signed cancelled because the lessor’s representatives acted fraudulently towards them in claiming that they had to contribute to paying for the renovation work required on the immovable or vacate their dwelling.

Lafond c. Immeubles Forsa inc. (December 4, 2020)

The lessor sought :

• to have the rent fixed

(monthly rent of $500 including heat)

The monthly rent is fixed at $700.

The new lessor successfully established one of the situations giving rise to preferential rent, namely mismanagement by the deceased who transmitted the immovable by succession.

The total lack of rent increase for 11 years in spite of investments in the immovable at issue is sufficient to establish mismanagement.

Succession de Gionet c. Prak (January 21, 2021)

The lessor applies for:

• resiliation of the lease
• recovery of rent owing

(monthly rent is $1,110/share of each of three co-tenants is $370 a month)

The Tribunal notes the resiliation of the lease and awards the lessor:

• $740 representing the share of the lessee remaining in the dwelling in May and June 2020
• $3,330 representing the full rent for July to September 2020

The lease does not state that the three lessees were solidarily liable towards the lessor.

Even though two of the lessees left the dwelling on June 30, 2020, their agreement with the lessor terminating their lease cannot be set up against the third lessee, since she never renounced her right to maintain occupancy.

The final lessee agreed to renew the lease, despite her co-tenants’ departure, thereby becoming solely responsible for the payment of the rent.

Costandi c. El Mekki* (January 21, 2021)

* Out-of-court settlement (C.Q., 2021-04-27)

The lessor applies for:

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

The Tribunal dismisses the lessor’s application.

A repossession date before the end of the lease is not permitted and renders the notice given to that effect invalid.

In this case, the lessor’s notice, which provides for repossession about 1.5 years before the end of the lease, is invalid.

In addition, the lessor did not establish that he in fact intends to repossess the dwelling as a residence for his mother. His intentions raise doubts.

Ashford-Parent c. Perreault (February 5, 2021)

The lessor applies for:

• resiliation of the lease

The Tribunal resiliates the lease.

The Régie du logement ordered the lessees to pay the rent on the first day of each month. They paid their rent for the month of January on January 3.

The lessees do not have an additional time period to fulfill their obligations solely because the term fell on a holiday.

The lessees were able to act, and they were negligent in failing to ensure that it would be possible to make the payment on the first of the month (WiFi access). Therefore, they do not have valid reasons for failing to comply with the order of the Tribunal.

Dion c. Atanasova (February 10, 2021)

The lessee:

• contests the admissibility of the lessor’s application for authorization to repossess the dwelling as a residence for his daughter

The Court dismisses the lessor’s application.

Since the lessor is not the owner of the immovable, he cannot present an application to repossess the dwelling.

Because the lessee did not answer the notice of repossession, he is deemed to have refused to vacate the dwelling. In such cases, the lessor must present his application during the month following the refusal.

If the lessor is negligent, he cannot be relieved of the consequences of his failure to respect the time limit.

Magdoul c. Ayoubi (February 11, 2021)

The lessor applies for:

• authorization to repossess the lessee’s dwelling as a residence for his former spouse

The Tribunal grants the lessor’s application and awards:

• an indemnity of $4,600 to the lessee for her moving expenses and the improvements she made to the dwelling

The notion of a “person connected by marriage or a civil union” includes married persons. Therefore, the lessor may repossess a dwelling as a residence for his former spouse to whom he is still married, provided that he is her main support.

The lessor has demonstrated that he provides significant financial support to his former spouse, as well as moral and family support.

He also proved that he truly intended to repossess the dwelling as a residence for his former spouse and not as a pretext for other purposes.

Lamothe c. Boucher (March 22, 2021)

The lessee applies:

• to the Tribunal to have it declare her notice of resiliation of the lease valid under article 1974 of the Civil Code of Québec

The Tribunal finds that:

• the notice of resiliation of the lease sent by the lessee is not valid

A lessee may resiliate his or her lease before the end of the term if he or she can no longer occupy the dwelling because of a handicap. The lessee must, however, give two months’ prior notice and provide a medical certificate.

The notion of “handicap” refers to a disability that is persistent, which limits the person’s ability to carry out normal activities, and significantly limits the person’s mobility in the dwelling and in accessing it.

The lessee has health issues, but they do not constitute a handicap. The physician who signed her medical note was clear about the fact that the lessee was not suffering from any physical limitation.

Morissette c. Gravel (April 7, 2021)

The lessor applies for:

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

The Tribunal dismisses the lessor’s application.

The lessor of a dwelling who is the owner of the dwelling may repossess it as a residence for ascendants or descendants in the first degree or for any other relative or person connected by marriage or a civil union of whom the lessor is the main support.

The lessor’s daughter-in-law is not a “relative”. This term means a family relationship.

Even if the lessor and her spouse were married and her stepdaughter were a person connected by marriage or a civil union, the proceeding would have been dismissed because no evidence was adduced that the lessor was her main support.

M.L. c. Lafortune (April 9, 2021)

The lessee applies for:

• the specific performance of the lessor’s obligations
• $7,500 in moral damages
• $7,500 in punitive damages
• $4,526 in damages
• $1,450 in reimbursement of rent

The lessor applies for:

• resiliation of the lease
• $1,450 in recovery of rent

(monthly rent is $1,450)

The Tribunal notes the resiliation of the lease due to the lessor’s fault and grants the lessee:

• $1,698 for reimbursement of hotel charges
• $3,500 in moral damages
• $5,000 in punitive damages

A lessor cannot change the access codes to the dwelling and evict the lessee from it without obtaining a decision from the Tribunal to this effect.

On the day the lessor evicted the lessee, it was not yet entitled to file an application with the Tribunal to resiliate the lease for non-payment of rent.

The lessee suffered major trauma as a result of his eviction. He was humiliated, he had to sleep at his workplace, he had to rent hotel rooms for his personal hygiene and to exercise his access rights to his daughters, and he had no access to his property. Two months would have been reasonable so that he could find a new dwelling, hence the reimbursement of hotel charges and moral damages.

The violation of his privacy and his home, the deprivation of the peaceable enjoyment of his property, and the violation of his dignity justify an award of punitive damages against the lessor.

Skalli Housseini c. 10376957 Canada inc. (April 20, 2021)

The lessor applies for:

• the review of the rent fixed

The Tribunal dismisses the lessor’s application.

The lessor undertook a project to improve its immovable, which took place over several years. It would now like to consolidate the capital expenditures incurred for the kitchen and bathroom renovations and have the lessees pay for them several years after the construction was completed. Such an accumulation of expenditures is not allowed.

The capital expenditure must be supported by the lessee who benefits from it.

Construction Sylvania inc. c. El Alouchi (April 30, 2021)

The lessor applies for:

• $2,570 in recovery of rent

(monthly rent is $1,020)

The Tribunal grants the lessor:

• $632

The lease expressly states that lessees are solidarily liable to the lessor.

When the lessees stopped being a couple, one of them informed the lessor of his desire to leave the dwelling. He then signed an agreement providing that he would be released from his obligations. This agreement was an offer that had to be accepted by both lessees for one of them to be discharged from his or her obligations.

By agreeing to release one lessee from the residential lease, despite the other lessee’s refusal to sign the agreement, the lessor cancelled the latter’s solidary obligation. Therefore, this lessee must pay only her share of the rent.

9332 8557 Québec inc. c. Whalen (May 21, 2021)

The lessee applies:

• to the Tribunal to have it declare her notice of resiliation of lease valid
• for the reimbursement of an amount of $1,385, that is, the overpayment of one month’s rent

The lessor applies for:

• the recovery of rent
• damages

The Tribunal notes the resiliation of the lease.

An elderly person may move from a private senior’s residence to “another similar residence” even if he or she will not receive additional care or services there.

After the arrival of the COVID-19 pandemic, the lessee’s daughter removed her from the private residence where she was staying to have her live at her home. She eventually decided not to have her return to her dwelling and sent a notice of resiliation to the lessor.

The notice is invalid because the home of the lessee’s daughter does not qualify as a lodging facility. Early resiliation is not possible when a family member provides supervision, care, and services equivalent to those offered in the private seniors’ residence or where the lessee was living.

Résidence Le Citadin c. Savino (May 21, 2021)

The lessee presents:

• an objection to an application to evict to subdivide the dwelling

(monthly rent is $655)

The lessee’s objection is dismissed.

The Tribunal awards the lessee:

• indemnity of $1,965, which is equivalent to three months’ rent
• $3,018 for moving expenses
• $194 to transfer various services

The lessor wanted to convert the lessee’s three-bedroom dwelling into two one-bedroom dwellings as a residence for her parents-in-law and her mother.

The delivery of a permit by municipal authorities is not a pre-requisite for sending a notice of eviction for the subdivision of a dwelling.

In this case, the steps taken by the lessor, who was awaiting a permit, demonstrate her desire to carry out her family project. She established the legality and the feasibility of the project.

Larue c. Moknine (July 2, 2021)

The lessor applied for:

• $950 in recovery of rent
• resiliation of the lease

The Tribunal:

• granted the lessor’s application for recovery of the rent
• resiliated the lease, unless the lessee paid the unpaid rent, interest, and costs before judgment

The lessor is a non-profit organization that offers affordable housing to people 65 years and older. The lessor is bound by an agreement with the Société d'habitation du Québec and therefore could not exempt the lessee from paying for the services provided in the lease.

When he signed the lease, the lessee agreed to pay the lessor monthly rent, the cost of which included not only rental of the dwelling but also the cost of the meal service. He could not decide to cancel the meal service during the lease and stop paying this part of his rent.

The lessee was over three weeks late in paying the rent, which justified resiliating the lease.

Cité des bâtisseurs de Pointe-Saint-Charles c. Manseau (October 21, 2021)

The lessor applied for:

• resiliation of the lease
• $680 in recovery of rent, representing the rent increase from July 2018 to October 2021

(monthly rent is $615)

The Tribunal:

• dismissed the application for recovery of the rent
• suspended the lease resiliation for frequent lateness in payment of rent
• ordered the lessee to pay his rent on the first day of each month

Starting in 2018, the lessor sent the lessee a notice of lease renewal by registered mail every year. Each time, the letter was returned stamped [TRANSLATION] “unclaimed by addressee”.

Failure to receive a notice of modification of the lease or to claim it at the post office does not necessarily invalidate the notice. There are situations, however, when it is important to prove that the notice was received.

The lessor was informed that the lessee had not claimed the notices of lease renewal she had sent by registered mail. She nevertheless did not take the necessary steps to give the lessee the notice of rent increase. As a result, the notices of rent increase were not validly given to the lessee, and starting on July 1, 2018, the lease was renewed at the same monthly rent of $615.

Brault c. Hasni (October 28, 2021)

The lessors apply for the resiliation of the lease.

The Tribunal orders the lessee to cease all manipulation of the electrical system, failing which the lease will be resiliated.

The electrical systems installed by the lessee without authorization from the lessors is a grave and serious breach of his obligations, including that to use the property with prudence and diligence. His actions are a form of gross negligence that could have had grave consequences.

The lessee's behaviour has caused the lessor's serious injury justifying the resiliation of the lease. It is appropriate to suspend resiliation, however, to make an order under article 1973 of the Civil Code of Québec to prohibit the lessee from manipulating the electrical system without first obtaining consent from the lessors.

Preti c. Alimonos (November 3, 2021)

The lessors applied for resiliation of the lease.

The Tribunal:

• resiliated the lease

The lessee changed the dwelling’s purpose by using it as a warehouse.

The lessors proved that they suffered serious prejudice due to their insurer’s refusal to cover them because the lessee did not occupy the premises and because of the dwelling’s change of destination.

The building’s integrity and the safety of its occupants were at risk because the lessee, who rarely occupied the dwelling, could not quickly inform the lessors of any situations that might occur in the dwelling.

The lessee was in bad faith because, on the date of the hearing, he was still in breach of the obligations under the lease.

Gagné c. Sanchez (November 17, 2021)

The lessor applied:

• for changes to the lease (removal of parking space, payment method, and term)
• to fix the monthly rent at $1,150 a month under the special rules on preferential rent

(monthly rent is $700)

The Tribunal:

• determined that the rent was not preferential
• fixed the monthly rent at $698

Rent for a dwelling is considered preferential when it meets the criteria in section 1 of the Regulation respecting the criteria for the fixing of rent, i.e., it is less than what is usually charged for a comparable dwelling where:

1. the tenant is the lessor’s relative or a person connected by marriage or a civil union, or the lessor’s employee;
2. the lessor supports or supported the tenant;
3. the dwelling is located in a building that was inherited and the amount of the rent is attributable to bad management by the deceased;
4. the lessor is a department or agency of the Gouvernement du Québec.

The lessor did not establish any of these situations.

The lessee could not be considered a relative of the previous lessee under the prior lease because the previous lessee was a legal person acting as liquidator of a succession.

Moreover, the lessor could not rely on poor management by the deceased more than one year after the succession opened. Preferential rent must be raised at the first opportunity, i.e., as soon as the succession opens.

The change to the lease to remove a parking space is late because it did not appear in the notice of modification given to the lessee.

Girard c. Dion (November 29, 2021)

The lessor applied for:

• eviction of the lessee

The lessee applied for:

• cancellation of the lease resiliation agreement she signed with the lessor’s mandatary
• $10,000 in punitive damages

The Tribunal cancelled the lease resiliation agreement.

The lessee’s consent was vitiated. The lessor’s mandatary took advantage of her vulnerability to induce her to abandon the lease.

The lessor’s mandatary did not provide the lessee with the information needed to make an informed decision. Nor did he explain the options that would allow her to keep her dwelling or give her enough time to consider. He also imposed a confidentiality clause prohibiting her from disclosing the content of the resiliation agreement.

9336-2390 Québec inc. c. Gorman (December 17, 2021)

The lessee opposes the notice of eviction sent by the lessors for the purpose of substantially enlarging their dwelling.

The lessee's opposition to the eviction notice is granted.

The notice of eviction for the purpose of enlarging the dwelling is declared invalid for the purpose of repossessing the dwelling.

The lessors' intent is to repossess the dwelling and combine it with the neighbouring unit to create a single dwelling for one of the co-owners after their separation.

When a dwelling is transformed to become an integral part of the lessor's place of residence, it constitutes the repossession of a dwelling, not an enlargement or a change of destination.

The rules and terms governing actions for eviction and actions for repossession of the dwelling are different. A notice of eviction for the purpose of substantial enlargement by the lessors does not meet the requirements for repossessing a dwelling.

Mc Laughlin c. Giroux (March 2, 2022)

The lessee applies for:

• $2,415 (indemnity for three months' rent)
• $3,000 in moral damages
• $10,000 in punitive damages

(monthly rent of $805)

The Tribunal grants the lessee:

• $2,000 in punitive damages
• $1,500 in moral damages

After a fire, the lessee sent the former lessor a notice of abandonment of the dwelling. The lessor subsequently sold the immovable to the new lessor, without informing it of the existence of the lessee's lease.

The lessor did not follow through on the lessee's demands when it was informed of the existence of the lease. It should have at least validated this information before renting the dwelling to someone else. It committed a fault against the lessee by denying her right to maintain occupancy of the dwelling. This was an unlawful and intentional interference with a fundamental right under the Charter of human rights and freedoms, justifying an award of punitive damages.

As for the indemnity of three months' rent that is claimed, the Tribunal finds that article 1965 of the Civil Code of Québec (C.C.Q.) does not apply because it is related to article 1959 C.C.Q., which concerns eviction cases under the law. In this case, the eviction was unlawful.

Forget c. Gestion immobilière Mix Cité inc. (March 7, 2022)

The lessor applies for:

• the resiliation of the lease
• $2,890 $ in recovery of rent

(monthly rent is $575)

The Tribunal:

• dismisses the lessor’s applications
• notes the renewal of the lease on the same conditions

The lease provides for monthly rent of $745, from which is deducted a rebate of $170, conditional upon the lessee’s compliance with the obligations contained in the lease, including the payment of the rent.

The lessor is of the view that the lessee is no longer entitled to the rebate and must pay the full rent because she refused the rent increase.

The rebate clause is equivalent to a penal clause. It allows the lessor to circumvent the law and do justice unto himself if the lessee fails to fulfill an obligation. It also allows him to considerably increase the rent without following the procedure set out in arts. 1941 and seq. of the Civil Code of Québec.

The real monthly rent is $575. A repeated rent rebate ceases to be a promotional clause and becomes part of the base rent. Since the notice of rent increase sent by the lessor was not compliant, the lease was renewed under the same conditions.

Lazzara c. Ducharme (March 16, 2022)

The lessee claims:

• $2,338 in material damages
• $2,500 in moral damages
• $9,600 in punitive damages

The Tribunal grants the lessee all compensation claimed, for a total of $14,438.

The existence of an agreement between the parties when the lessee left does not prevent her from obtaining damages, because the dwelling was repossessed in bad faith.

The lessors did not intend to repossess the dwelling to accommodate a member of their family, as established by the evidence from their Instagram account. They were negligent and reckless with regard to the rights of the lessee, which can be equated with bad faith.

André-Bélisle c. Audet (March 17, 2022)

The lessor applies for:

• the fixing of the rent ($150 per month increase)

The lessees apply for:

• a rent reduction

(monthly rent of $1,700)

The monthly rent is fixed at $1,726.

A capital expense can be taken into account only once in accordance with s. 13 of the Regulation respecting the criteria for the fixing of rent.

The renovations were listed in the leases and known by the lessees when the initial rent was fixed. They should not be held liable for mishaps or unforeseen work.

There is no reason to reduce the rent on account of the late delivery of the parking lot. Section 8 of the Regulation requires that the loss of an accessory to the lease must be somewhat permanent for the rent to be reduced accordingly.

9392-2680 Québec inc. c. Charpentier-Hébert* (March 18, 2022)

* Application to be relieved of the failure to file the application for review within the time limit and for review dismissed (TAL, 2022-07-28)

The lessor’s hypothecary creditor asks the Tribunal to declare that the lease is null and void and that it may not be set up against it.

The Tribunal:

• cancels the lease
• declares the lease may not be set up against the lessor’s hypothecary creditor
• orders the lessee’s eviction

The lessor and the lessee entered into a 10-year lease with monthly rent of $500, including energy, snow removal, lawn care, and insurance costs.

The hypothec granted to the lessor prohibited rental of the immovable. In addition, the lease was entered into when the lessor was in a difficult financial situation, which the lessee was aware of.

By signing the lease, the lessor and the lessee considerably reduced the value of the hypothecated immovable to the detriment of the hypothecary creditor, which is a violation of art. 2734 of the Civil Code of Québec.

Caisse Desjardins des Chutes Montmorency c. Sylvain* (March 9, 2022)

* Corrected on March 28, 2022

The applicant, who is the lessor’s senior officer, applies for the repossession of the leased premises.

The application for repossession is dismissed.

The applicant is not qualified to exercise the right to repossess the dwelling since the legal person of which he is the senior officer is the owner and lessor of the building.

Only physical persons can apply for authorization to repossess a dwelling as a residence for himself or herself or for the persons named in art. 1957 of the Civil Code of Québec, that is, ascendants or descendants in the first degree or any other relative or person connected by marriage or a civil union of whom the lessor is the main support.

Corey c. Mercier (April 4, 2022)

The lessor applies for the resiliation of the lease.

The lease is resiliated.

The lessee unilaterally changed the destination of the dwelling by using over one third of its area for non-residential purposes, that is, to operate an integration centre for persons with autism spectrum disorders.

The lessee did not respect his obligations under the lease, which was to be used for residential purposes and allowed up to one third of the premises to be used as a drop-in centre.

The significant increase in insurance coverage as a result of the lessee's activities in the dwelling caused the lessor serious prejudice that justifies termination of the lease.

Xie c. Bosso (April 6, 2022)

The lessee asks the Tribunal:

• to acknowledge the existence of a transaction between the parties
• to condemn the lessor to pay $10,000 pursuant to the lease resiliation agreement

The Tribunal:

• determines that the lessee’s remedy is not prescribed
• grants the lessee’s application

On June 5, 2018, the lessor's representative offered the lessee $10,000 on the condition that she vacate her unit by July 1, 2018. The offer was accepted the same day. On June 11, 2018, the representative informed the lessee that he and his partners were not interested in entering into an agreement. The lessee filed her claim with the Tribunal more than 3 years after this date, on October 5, 2021.

The recourse is not prescribed since the prescription periods were suspended for the period of March 15 to August 31, 2020, by various decrees adopted by government authorities following the public health emergency declared as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The lessor's representative led the lessee to believe that he had the authority to enter into an agreement with her. He did not inform her that the agreement was subject to certain conditions, including approval by his business partners. The lessee has validly demonstrated that an agreement had been reached and that the lessor had not honoured it.

Dubois c. 9369-2549 Québec inc. (April 14, 2022)

The lessor applies for:

• the resiliation of the lease

The Tribunal:

• dismisses the lessor’s application

The lessee, who contracted COVID-19, had to respect the directives of the public health authorities and self-isolate for ten days, which prevented her from paying her rent in cash.

The Tribunal can exercise its discretionary power to dismiss an application for resiliation of the lease for failure to respect an order rendered pursuant to art. 1973, para. 2 of the Civil Code of Québec (C.C.Q.), on the condition that proof of a sufficient reason justifying the failure be presented.

The lessee did not fail to respect the order to pay her rent on the first day of every month pursuant to art. 1973 C.C.Q. Rather, it was impossible for her to do so, due to exceptional circumstances.

Office municipal d'habitation du Bassin de Chambly c. Tétreault (April 28, 2022)

The lessor applies for the resiliation of the lease.

The Tribunal dismisses the lessor’s application.

The lessor apples for the resiliation of the lease due to the lessee's failure to comply with an order rendered under article 1973 C.C.Q. compelling her to clean and clear her apartment of accumulated objects, keep it in good condition, prepare the premises for an extermination, and cooperate with the extermination process.

Mere proof of a lessee's failure to comply with an order under article 1973 C.C.Q. results in the resiliation of the lease. However, the violations of the order must have taken place when the application for resiliation is filed.

The lessor has not established that the order had been violated at the time she filed her application for resiliation. The order required that the lessee take action to clean and clear her apartment of accumulated objects, not that the result be achieved the day after the order came into effect.

7973985 Canada inc. (SC Capital) c. Ayotte (May 5, 2022)

The lessee appeals from:

• a decision by the Tribunal administratif du logement, which ordered his eviction from the dwelling.

The lessee’s appeal is dismissed.

The lessee is deemed to have accepted the termination of the lease pursuant to art. 1948 of the Civil Code of Québec (C.C.Q.), since she did not object to the notice of non-renewal for having subleased the dwelling for more than 12 months within the deadline.

The Tribunal has before it an application to evict a lessee who continued to occupy the premises after the expiry of the lease (art. 1889 C.C.Q.) and must determine:

1. if the notice of non-renewal was served not less than three months nor more than six months before the term of the lease
2. if no objection to the notice of renewal was submitted to the Tribunal within 1 month
3. if the lessee continued to occupy the dwelling when the application for eviction was presented

If these conditions are met, the lessee is absolutely deemed to have accepted the termination of his or her lease, such that the lessor need not prove the subleasing.

Arthur Amro Holdings Inc. c. Westmount Square Residential* (April 28, 2022)

* Corrected on May 9, 2022

The lessee applies for:

• $6,000 in material damages
• $4,000 in moral damages
• $42,250 in punitive damages

(monthly rent of $3,000)

The Tribunal awards the lessee:

• $3,000 in material damages
• $30,000 in punitive damages

The lessee was the victim of bad faith in the repossession of her dwelling.

The lessors never told their daughter that they planned to repossess the two-storey house to make it available to her, and it is clear that she never had the intention to live there. Furthermore, they put the immovable up for sale shortly after the lessee moved out. They also offered it for rent at a higher price ($3,950 per month), without the Tribunal's approval.

The lessee is entitled to $3,000 for the difference paid in rent, which is half of the amount sought, given that her new dwelling is in better condition than the preceding one.

Given the significance of the incident, the condemnation to pay $30,000 in punitive damages expresses society's outrage at the lessors' conduct. It also makes it clear to anyone who might be tempted to act in that way that such conduct is blameworthy.

Moroz c. Brown-Johnson (May 11, 2022)

The lessee applies for the dismissal of the application for authorization to repossess the lessors’ dwelling.

The lessors’ application is dismissed.

The lessors do not meet the conditions set out in article 1958 of the Civil Code of Québec (C.C.Q.) to repossess the dwelling since the building has more than 2 co-owners.

The conditions necessary to exercise the right of repossession must be met at the time the notice is sent, and the notice must be received at least 6 months before the end of a 12-month lease. The fact that there were 4 co-owners at the time the notice of repossession was sent to the lessee prevents the repossession of the unit.

Even if a counter letter indicates that only the lessor and her spouse are the true co-owners of the building, the lessee can invoke the apparent contract under article 1452 C.C.Q., namely the notarized act of sale stipulating that 4 persons are undivided co-owners of the building.

Goulmane c. Giguère-Vocelle (May 11, 2022)

The lessors seek the review of a decision by the Tribunal's special clerk dismissing their application to fix the rent.

The lessors' application is dismissed.

The notice of the modification of conditions of the lease must be given in the time period set out under art. 1942 of the Civil Code of Québec (C.C.Q.).

A notice of modification given outside the time period will have the same consequences, whether it is early or late.

The question of harm suffered by a lessee due to the fact that a notice of modification was given outside the time period arises only if the lessor shows a reasonable ground to be relieved of the failure.

The special clerk did not err when raising ex officio the irregularity of the notice of modification of the conditions of the lase.

Paul c. Salmoune (May 20, 2022)

The lessor applies for:

• $3,420 in damages

The lessee’s application is dismissed.

The lessor took advantage of the lessees' inexperience and their precarious situation to present them with options to assign or sublet that included such significant challenges that the simplest option remained paying a $2,800 penalty to terminate the lease.

The fact that these choices were presented under pressure and as the only possible options is fraud vitiating the lessees' consent, leading them to enter into an agreement to their detriment.

Mailloux c. Pratte-Lefebvre (May 25, 2022)

The lessees oppose a notice of execution of a judgment by the Tribunal resiliating the lease and ordering their eviction.

The Tribunal:

• grants the lessees' opposition
• cancels the notice of execution

The lease binding the parties was resiliated by the TAL in August 2021. The lessor agreed, however, to defer the execution of the judgment and the lessees’ eviction. The parties entered into a written agreement allowing the lessees to remain in the dwelling for 10 months.

Such a long-term agreement contravenes the public order rules that apply in matters of residential leasing. The Court of Québec cannot endorse the execution of a contract that would, among other things, circumvent the TAL's exclusive adjudicative jurisdiction.

If the distinctions that violate public order are removed, the agreement entered into by the parties is a lease for a dwelling.

Gattusso c. Grenier (May 30, 2022)

The lessees apply for:

• the fixing of the monthly rent at $1,200 in application of the special rules relating to preferential rent

(monthly rent is $660)

The Tribunal:

• finds that the rent is preferential
• fixes the monthly rent at $945

The rent for a dwelling is considered “preferential rent” when it meets the criteria set out in s. 1 of the Regulation respecting the criteria for the fixing of rent, such as when a lessee is the lessor’s relative or a person connected by marriage or a civil union.

The lessee’s rent is still affected by the family relationship that existed between his spouse, now deceased, and the former lessors, who sold the immovable to the new lessors.

The rent payable must be determined while taking into account the rent usually charged for a comparable dwelling, considering that the lessee has lived in his dwelling for almost 10 years. In the circumstances, it is appropriate to accept the assessment of the lessors’ expert and fix the monthly rent at $820, in addition to monthly rent of $125 for the parking space.

Leblanc c. Hains* (March 25, 2022)

* Corrected on June 2, 2022

The lessor co-owners seek authorization to repossess the dwelling so that one of them may live there following their separation.

The lessors' application is dismissed.

Article 1958 of the Civil Code of Québec (C.C.Q.) allows two undivided co-owners to repossess a dwelling if they are spouses.

The lessor co-owners cannot be recognized as de facto spouses within the meaning of article 1958 C.C.Q. despite their living together because the reason that led to sending the notice of repossession of the dwelling was their separation.

According to the definition under s. 61.1 of the Interpretation Act, two conditions must be met for two persons to be considered de facto spouses. These persons must:

• live together;

and

• represent themselves publicly as a couple.

Beaulieu c. Mickels (July 6, 2022)

The lessor seeks:

• resiliation of the lease
• $20,451 in recovery of unpaid rent for the period between March 2019 and February 2021

The lessor’s application is granted.

For years, the lessees paid their rent in advance to the janitor of the building in exchange for work done in the dwelling. However, the lessor had mandated the janitor to collect the rent, but not to enter into such an agreement with the lessees.

The lessees did not make basic verifications with the lessor to ensure that the janitor was authorized to enter into such an agreement with them, even though several “red flags” were apparent. They instead decided to remain silent to take advantage of a situation that was to their benefit.

The lessees did not objectively act in good faith, which prevents them from contending that the janitor had an apparent mandate under article 2163 of the Civil Code of Québec. Accordingly, the payments they made to the janitor do not liberate them from their obligation to pay rent to the lessor.

Société de financement alouette inc. c. A. (August 17, 2022)

The lessees apply for:

• fixing of rent

(monthly rent of $1,000)

• authorization to set off the amounts overpaid against future rent

The monthly rent is fixed at $769.

Section G of the lease, which concerns the rent paid by the previous lessee, was not completed by the lessor. The lessees were told that the former lessee paid monthly rent of $765. They filed their application within the two-month time limit set out under art. 1950 of the Civil Code of Québec (C.C.Q.).

The fact the lessees agreed to pay the rent when the time period to present an application to fix the rent had not expired does not constitute a renunciation of the exercise of their right. Moreover, signing the lease does not constitute a renunciation of the subsequent exercise of such a recourse.

The market rental value is not a criterion that need be considered when fixing rent under art. 1950 C.C.Q.

The law provides for the automatic setting off of two debts that are certain, liquid, and exigible. The lessees may, once the judgment is enforceable, deduct the amount from the rent.

Richard-Bordon c. Apostu (September 14, 2022)

The lessees apply to the Tribunal for:

• a ruling on the validity of a notice of non-renewal of the lease
• $5,000 in moral damages

The Tribunal:

• declares that the notice of non-renewal is invalid
• dismisses the lessee's application for moral damages

In its notice of non-renewal, the lessor faulted the lessees for subletting the apartment without its authorization, in violation of the housing cooperative’s by-laws.

The grounds invoked by the lessor do not allow it to exercise its right not to renew the lease under article 1944 of the Civil Code of Québec. It should have brought an application to resiliate the lease under article 1863 C.C.Q. instead.

The lessor's failure to inform the sublessees of the non-renewal of the lease is sufficient to conclude that the notice is invalid. Moreover, the evidence does not establish that the lessors sublet their dwelling for more than 12 months.

The application for moral damages is dismissed because the lessees have not established that they suffered injury.

Lawani c. Coopérative d'habitation (September 16, 2022)

The lessors apply for:

• authorization to repossess the dwelling

The Tribunal:

• dismisses the application on the ground that the notice of repossession of the dwelling was sent too soon.

The parties are bound by a lease from July 1, 2021, to June 30, 2022. On April 15, 2022, the lessors sent the lessee a notice in which they said they wanted to repossess the dwelling on July 1, 2023, at the end of the period following the renewal of the current lease.

The notice of repossession of a dwelling must be sent to a lessee at least six months before the expiry of a lease with a fixed term of more than six months (art. 1960 C.C.Q.). It may be sent earlier, but it must be sent during the term of the lease the lessor wishes to terminate.

Pietrantonio c. Robichaud (October 25, 2022)

The lessor, a private seniors’ residence, seeks:

• the resiliation of the lease because of a delay in the payment of rent of over 3 weeks
• the recovery of unpaid rent

The application is dismissed.

The Tribunal has jurisdiction to rule on anything relating to the lease of a dwelling in a private seniors’ residence, but it cannot determine the necessity of the care requested.

The agreement between the parties provided that the lessor could proceed with occasional evaluations to ensure that the lessee was provided with the appropriate care.

This evaluation process, which may result in a reduction or an increase in rent, is akin to a renewal of the conditions of a lease of a dwelling and in this respect may result in the resiliation of the lease and be the subject of a contestation.

The lessor’s failure to respond to the lessee’s refusal to accept the modifications proposed in the notice of renewal resulted in the renewal of the lease on the same conditions.

Société en commandite RDM c. Bibeau-Robillard (October 26, 2022)

The lessee seeks:

• $3,960 in material damages (representing the difference in rent paid over 24 months)
• $5,000 in moral damages
• $30,000 in punitive damages

The Tribunal awards the lessee:

• $1,920 for the difference in rent she had to pay for 12 months
• $3,000 in moral damages
• $20,000 in punitive damages

The lessee consented to the lessor’s repossession of the dwelling so that his children could occupy it, but they never lived there.

The lessor sold the immovable less than 10 months after the repossession because of financial trouble he was already experiencing before the repossession.

The lessor repossessed the lessee’s dwelling to make it easier to sell the building. He acted knowingly and in bad faith and thereby denied a lessee’s ability to maintain occupancy, which is the cornerstone of the law governing leases in Quebec.

Carman c. Patel (October 26, 2022)

The lessor seeks:

• recovery of rent for the month following the lessee’s death and related electricity costs
• $32,134 in material damages

The lessee’s succession seeks:

• $384 in reimbursement of rent
• $686 in material damages

The Tribunal:

• dismisses the lessor’s application

and

• grants the lessee’s succession:
  • $384 in reimbursement of rent
  • $300 in material damages

The lessor entered the lessee’s dwelling two days after the lessee’s death. There was no urgent situation authorizing his entry, and he did not inform the succession. He unlawfully took possession of the dwelling after the lessee’s death and thus terminated the lease.

Accordingly, the lessor is not entitled to compensation for two months’ rent as provided in article 1939 of the Civil Code of Québec.

Moreover, the lessor must reimburse the portion of the lease that was paid after the unlawful taking of possession of the dwelling.

Manikis c. Pope (Succession de Pope) (November 30, 2022)

The lessor seeks:

• rent to be fixed

The lessee seeks:

• dismissal of the application on grounds of tardiness

The Tribunal:

• notes that the proceeding is perempted
• dismisses the application for a rent increase

The lessor was required to go before the Tribunal to have the rent fixed within the month following receipt of the notice from the lessee refusing the proposed increase. Negotiations between the parties do not extend this deadline. The lease is renewed by operation of law on the same conditions.

A notice is a source of rights and triggers the procedure set out in articles 1942 and 1945 C.C.Q., unless the notice is irregular because of an obvious clerical error or inconsistency with the law.

Champagne c. Dickey (December 29, 2022)

The lessor seeks:

• resiliation of the lease
• $8,158 in lost rent due to departure of lessees

The Tribunal awards the lessor:

• $687.50 in unpaid rent

The parties were bound by a lease from July 1, 2021, to June 30, 2022.

The lessees, who wanted to move out of the dwelling, agreed with the lessor that their lease would be resiliated when the immovable was sold. The lessor accepted an offer to purchase on October 14, 2021, and the lessees left the dwelling on October 31, 2021. However, the purchasers did not appear before the notary on the scheduled date, November 16, 2021, and refused to conclude the transaction. In the end, the immovable was sold on April 29, 2022.

The lessees are not responsible for rent lost after November 16, 2021, because the loss suffered by the lessor as of that date results from the cancellation of the sale by the promisors. They are, however, required to pay rent between the date of their departure and the date of cancellation of the sale.

Madelein c. Bourassa* (February 21, 2023)

* Corrected decision

The lessees contest the change of destination of the leased premises.

The Tribunal:

• dismisses the lessees’ application to object to the eviction

and

• grants the lessees an indemnity of 3 months’ rent ($3,075) and $2,500 to cover moving expenses

The lessor demonstrated that it truly intended to offer short-term rentals and had obtained all the required authorizations to do so. This plan entails a change of destination of the dwelling because it changes the vocation of the dwelling from residential to commercial.

According to article 1966 of the Civil Code of Québec (C.C.Q.), the lessor does not have to establish good faith by demonstrating that its plan is not a pretext for other purposes as in cases involving the repossession of a dwelling.

The term “moving expenses” used in article 1967 C.C.Q. makes it possible to grant an indemnity that takes into account factors such as the lessee’s age and state of health, the duration of the occupancy, the attachment to the dwelling, the cost of transporting property as well as the cost of connecting to public utilities.

Julien Quintin c. Placements Ask inc. (February 10, 2023)

The lessor applies for:

• the fixing of rent

The lessees apply for:

• the rejection of the RN form on the ground that it was produced in English
• a rent reduction on the ground that they have permanently lost access to the pool, sauna, and hot tub

(monthly rent of $938)

The Tribunal:

• fixes the rent at $965 a month

The necessary information form (RN Form) required in matters concerning the fixing of rent under section 56.3 of the Act respecting the Administrative Housing Tribunal is not a notice within the meaning of article 1898 C.C.Q. It may be set up against the lessee even though it is drawn up in a different language than the lease.

The application for a rent reduction was not granted because the new gym, which was made available to the lessees, replaces the pool and is an equivalent service.

Characterization of certain expenses taken under reserve:

• expenses related the terrace (roof of the businesses) are included in the calculation of the rent because the infrastructure must be considered as a whole
• the purchase of new household appliances is considered a major expense, not maintenance
• restoration of the dwelling to a state of good repair (when it consists of maintenance painting and light plastering work) is included in the maintenance expenses

Hazelview Property Services Inc. c. An (February 21, 2023)

The lessees contest the change of destination of the leased premises.

The lessees’ objection to the eviction notice is granted.

The notice of eviction states that the dwelling, which has four and half rooms, will be renovated to transform it into a dwelling with five and half rooms.

The work planned by the lessor does not involve the subdivision of the dwelling or a substantial expansion within the meaning of article 1959 C.C.Q.

The lessor’s plan does not aim to expand the dwelling or modify its area, and the work does not aim to merge two dwellings.

Burton c. Desroches (February 1, 2023)

The lessee applies for:

• $2,260 in material damages
• $2,000 in moral damages

The Tribunal awards the lessee:

• $1,568 in material damages, i.e., $1,099 for the reimbursement of one month’s rent and $469 for expenses incurred to assign his lease
• $500 in moral damages

The lessee is not required to respond within thirty days to a notice of renewal that does not provide for any rent increase or modification of the conditions of the lease to avoid an automatic renewal of his lease.

The notice of non-renewal sent by the lessee, which was given between three and six months before the end of the lease, is therefore valid and may be set up against the lessor.

The lessee is entitled to receive compensation for the injury which is an immediate, direct, and foreseeable consequence of the lessor’s fault.

The lessee was forced to take steps to assign or sub-lease his dwelling to reduce his damages due to the lessor’s unjustified refusal to recognize the validity of the notice of non-renewal of the lessee’s lease.

Gregoire c. Interrent Holding Manager (February 10, 2023)

The lessors apply for:

• authorization to repossess the dwelling

The lessee applies for:

• the dismissal of the application on the ground that it is inadmissible

The application for repossession of the dwelling is declared inadmissible.

On November 4, 2022, the lessors filed an application to repossess the dwelling as a residence for the lessor’s father. On December 16, 2022, they amended the application to repossess the dwelling as a residence for themselves.

The application for repossession has become inadmissible on its very face when the lessors changed the beneficiary. Indeed, this is a completely new application from the one that was the subject of the notice sent to the lessee.

Khov c. Merdja (March 22, 2023)

The lessees object to the eviction notice sent by the lessors, who wish to substantially enlarge the dwelling and change its destination to a single-family home.

Two months earlier, the lessees had received a notice of repossession of the dwelling so that only one of the three lessors could live there. The lessees refused to leave the dwelling at the time.

In the application, the lessees argued that the lessors cannot provide successive notices modifying their intentions each time.

The Tribunal:

• upholds the lessees’ objection
• declares the eviction notice null and void

The rules of eviction for enlarging a dwelling must be used only in cases where the dwelling is returned to the rental market.

In this case, the immovable belongs to three co-owners, namely, a couple and their daughter. Their intention was always to repossess the dwelling in question to live there.

The repossession of a dwelling is prohibited if there are several co-owners and they are not spouses.

The lessors may not proceed by way of an eviction notice to circumvent the rules of repossession of the dwelling. These rules are of public order and therefore may not be violated.

Bernard Allard c. Mitrofanov (March 30, 2023)

The lessor applied for:

• recovery of unpaid rent ($4,400)
• resiliation of the lease
• damages for cleaning ($1,149.75)
• authorization to dispose of the property
• a reservation of rights for its other remedies

(monthly rent of $1,100)

The lease is resiliated.

The Tribunal grants the lessor:

• $7,700 for unpaid rent
• $1,149.75 in damages

The lessee’s property in the leased dwelling must be disposed of according to law.

The lessee committed suicide with a firearm in his dwelling.

This was not a case of superior force but a planned act with foreseeable consequences.

The deceased is responsible for the damage caused to the leased premises as a result of his death.

The lessor is entitled to damages for the costs incurred to clean the scene of the lessee’s suicide.

Pétroles Expert inc. c. Succession de Bonhomme (April 28, 2023)

The lessee appeals:

• a decision of the Tribunal dismissing her application to repossess a dwelling to live there

The lessor’s appeal is granted.

The lessee is entitled to an indemnity of $2,000.

The Tribunal, which was convinced of the lessor’s good faith and the fact that her plan was not a pretext to achieve a purpose other than what was stated in the notice of repossession, should have granted her application.

To determine whether the grounds for repossession of the dwelling were plausible, the Tribunal could consider whether her plans to organize the space were permanent in nature. Nevertheless, while the stability and durability of the plans may be relevant to the analysis, they are not criteria set out in the law.

The Tribunal therefore could not refuse to authorize the repossession of the dwelling because it was not persuaded that the situation invoked by the lessor would change in a few months and that the dwelling would be rented out again.

Aly c. Gagnon (April 20, 2023)

The lessee’s succession applied for:

• $12,005 in damages
• $15,000 in moral damages
• $50,000 in punitive damages

(monthly rent of $395)

The Tribunal awards the lessee’s succession:

• $6,560 in damages
• $10,000 in moral damages
• $10,000 in punitive damages

The lessee was the victim of a bad faith repossession of a dwelling.

The lessee is entitled to damages for the difference in rent he had to pay for 12 months after moving.

The lessor is not entitled to reimbursement of the amount of $1,185 that she paid to the lessee when repossessing the dwelling because it was not specified whether the amount should be allocated to moving fees or to excess rental costs.

The amount of $2,080 received by the lessee under the tax credit for home-support services for seniors should not be deducted from the damages awarded his succession to compensate for the difference in rent because taxpayers are not granted this tax credit to pay rent but to receive home-support services.

The lessor must compensate for the inconveniences suffered by the lessee, a vulnerable person who was 83 years old, who had lived in his dwelling for more than nine years and who had to move twice.

Charpentier (Succession de Charpentier) c. Brulotte (April 20, 2023)

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

(monthly rent of $969)

The Tribunal:

• authorizes the lessor to repossess the dwelling
• awards an indemnity of $967 to the lessee for leaving

The notice of repossession complies with the conditions set out in the law and was validly given to the lessee.

The lack of signature beside the lessor’s name in block letters does not invalidate the notice, any more than does the lack of address for the dwelling concerned.

The lessor purchased her sister’s shares in the building. Even though she had not paid the entire sale price, the lessor was the sole owner of the dwelling when the notice was sent.

Deraspe c. Gélinas (June 8, 2023)

The lessor applies for authorization to repossess the lessee’s dwelling as a residence for himself.

The lessor’s application is dismissed.

The term “at the time of repossession” in article 1959.1 C.c.Q. must be understood as the time repossession takes effect, namely, the date of the move or the end of the lease.

The lessee, who was 69 years old at the time of the notice of repossession of the dwelling but who will be 70 years old on the date the right of repossession is exercised, is entitled to protection under article 1959.1 C.c.Q.

Martineau c. Packwood (June 2, 2023)

The lessee objects to the notice of eviction to subdivide her dwelling, and she seeks:

• $17,870 in material damages
• $10,000 in moral damages

(monthly rent of $861)

Other lessees in the building object to the enlargement of their respective dwellings. *

The Tribunal grants the application in part:

• it takes note of the lessor’s withdrawal of the notice of eviction
• it notes that the application has become moot
• it condemns the lessor to pay the lessee the amount of $447.34 to reimburse extrajudicial fees

The lessor sent notices of eviction that she knew were illegal. The aim of the notices was to secure the departure of the lessees, even though her plan did not meet the statutory requirements.

Once the dwellings were vacant, major work took place and they were either leased out at rents three times higher than what the lessees paid or they were put up for sale.

The lessor violated her obligation to exercise her rights in good faith, which constitutes a fault.

The lessor’s fault caused damage to the lessees, who are entitled to reimbursement of certain costs and professional fees incurred in the proceedings.

Section 63.2 of the Act respecting the Administrative Housing Tribunal does not permit awards of material damages to the lessees, because the lessor did not bring a proceeding. The sending of an eviction notice does not constitute a proceeding.

Young c. Société en commandite 4741-4763 Avenue Coolbrook (May 4, 2023)

*On the same day, for the same reasons, the lessees were awarded $3,660.18 and $447.34, respectively, to reimburse extrajudicial fees in Lindsay c. Société en commandite 4741-4763 Avenue Coolbrook and Kuchuk c. Société en commandite 4741-4763 Avenue Coolbrook.