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:

• 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 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:

• 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 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 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 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 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 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:

• rigorously analyzing the financial framework
• preparing of plans
• obtaining the opinions of professionals (e.g. architects or engineers)
• submitting the cost of the work
• obtaining the required permits

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

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)

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’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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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)