Tribunal administratif du logement
You are here :
The Tribunal makes summaries of decisions on various topics available to you.
That tool could be useful to prepare your application or as part of a conciliation session. For example, it could help you estimate the amount of damages to which you are entitled or the nature of the orders likely to be issued by the Tribunal.
The following examples of judgements are provided for information purposes only.
Several factors can influence an administrative judge’s decision. For example, a clause provided for in the lease, the relevance and quality of the evidence provided, etc. In summary, each case is different and each decision depends on the evidence submitted to the Tribunal.
Fixing of rent
Immovable by transmission of succession
The lessor sought :
(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 (21 janvier 2021)
Defect in consent
Each lessee asked the Tribunal :
The lessor asked the Tribunal :
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. (4 décembre 2020)
The lessee seeks:
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 lessee has not complied with an order to pay her rent on the first of each month.
The lessor seeks:
The administrative judge:
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 lessee refuses the lessor's application for repossession of the leased premises.
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 informed the lessees that he would like to repossess their dwelling as a residence for himself.
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 lessee refuses to vacate his dwelling.
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)
Repossession of the dwelling
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 lessee suffers from chronic lower back pain with sciatica. His condition worsened after he began occupying the dwelling.
He sent a notice of resiliation of the lease under art. 1974 C.C.Q. (ground of handicap) along with a medical opinion.
The lessor applies for:
(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:
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 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:
Ignelzi c. Girard (April 23, 2019)
Indemnity (art. 1967 C.C.Q.)
The lessors apply for:
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)
Modification of a condition of a lease
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)
Assignment of a lease
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)
Eviction for enlargement
The lessor objects to the notice of eviction.
The objection is allowed.
The lessor did not demonstrate the feasibility of the project from a structural standpoint or show that the work planned complies with applicable regulatory standards (zoning and urban planning).
The seriousness of the project (feasibility) is shown by:
Doyle-Gosselin c. 9299-2551 Québec inc. (April 25, 2019)
Main support (interpretation)
The lessor seeks authorization to repossess the dwelling so that his 84-year-old uncle can live there.
The application is allowed.
The lessee is awarded an indemnity of $1800 for moving expenses.
The lessor is his uncle’s moral, psychological, family and social support.
The dwelling is not being repossessed in order to evict the lessee.
Ignelzi c. Girard (April 23, 2019)
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)
On March 9, 2010, the lessor’s Board of Directors adopted a resolution amending the building by-laws to prohibit dogs.
Lessees who already owned a dog had acquired rights but could not replace the animal.
On June 29, 2017, the by-law in question was again amended to totally prohibit dogs, regardless of acquired rights.
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 lessor threw out the lessee’s belongings found in the dwelling.
The lessee’s insurer paid her $2,769 in compensation.
The lessee’s insurer seeks $2,769 in damages from the lessor.
The Régie awards the insurer:
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 sent an eviction notice to the lessee as he wanted to substantially enlarge his dwelling.
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.
Lessors failed to carry out work in the dwelling.
Lessees refused to take possession of the dwelling.
The lessees apply for:
The Régie awards the lessees:
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)
Lease resiliation agreement
Threats from the lessor
Validity of the contract
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)
Unilateral modification of the conditions of the lease
Consumption of cannabis in the dwelling
(monthly rent is $350, including electricity)
The Régie awards the lessee:
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 lessor informed the lessee that he would like to repossess his dwelling as a residence for his daughter.
The lessee’s vulnerability
Renting the dwelling to a third party
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)
Production of cannabis
The lessor applies for the resiliation of the lease.
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)
Repeated and unfounded complaints
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)
Hospitalization of the lessee
Mental health issues
Refusal to hand over the key to the dwelling
The lessee applies for:
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)
Repossession of the leased premises
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)
Change of the destination of the dwelling: rental for tourist purposes
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 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.
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)
Change of beneficiary
The lessor applies for authorization to repossess the dwelling as a residence for herself.
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)
Renewal of the lease
Notice of modification
Choice offered to the lessee
The Tribunal must rule on:
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)
Change of the destination of the dwelling
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)
Modification of lease
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)
Notice of modification of the lease
The lease is resiliated and the Tribunal awards the lessor:
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)
Notice written in a language other than the language of the lease
(monthly rent is $520)
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)
Renewal of lease
(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:
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)
Repossession of dwelling
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 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)
Failure to comply with an order to pay rent on the first day of each month
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 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)
Payment of rent
Discount granted to a co-lessee
(monthly rent is $1,020)
The Tribunal grants the lessor:
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)
Repossession of a dwelling
The Tribunal grants the lessor’s application and awards:
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:
The Tribunal finds that:
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 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)
Lack of authorization from the Tribunal
(monthly rent is $1,450)
The Tribunal notes the resiliation of the lease due to the lessor’s fault and grants the lessee:
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)
Private seniors' residence
Notice of resiliation
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)
Subdivision of a dwelling
The lessee presents:
(monthly rent is $655)
The lessee’s objection is dismissed.
The Tribunal awards the lessee:
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:
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)
Notice of modification to the lease
(monthly rent is $615)
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)
Change of destination of leased premises
The lessors applied for resiliation of 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)
Change to lease
The lessor applied:
(monthly rent is $700)
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:
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)
Defect of consent
The lessee applied for:
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)
Note to reader: The above examples of decisions were selected and summarized by SOQUIJ. In rare instances, they may have been appealed from before a higher court. If you wish to cite one of those judgments before a tribunal, it is recommended that you check the plumitif of the courthouse in question.
Note to reader: The above examples of decisions were selected and summarized by SOQUIJ. In rare instances, they may have been appealed from before a higher court. If you wish to cite one of those judgments before a tribunal, it is recommended that you check the plumitif of the courthouse in question.
If need be, you can consult other decisions with regard to dwelling leases by using the search engine (in French only) available free of charge on the SOQUIJ website. For best results, simply select a tribunal (e.g. Tribunal administratif du logement), and enter French key words such as “bruit” (noise), “moisissure” (mould), “zoothérapie” (animal therapy), “résiliation” (resiliation), “expulsion” (eviction), etc.