Repossession of housing: an 85-year-old tenant obtains $25,816 in damages

Victim of a housing repossession carried out in bad faith, an 85-year-old tenant who had lived in her home for 30 years obtained $25,816 in damages. How is this explained legally?

In law, the notion of good faith is essential. It is even a key principle of the Civil Code of Quebec according to which no right can be exercised to harm another person.

This housing recovery story was judged on September 24 and the judgment is final. An 85-year-old tenant at the time of the events had lived in her Longueuil home for 30 years.

According to the Administrative Housing Tribunal (TAL), its owner was not in good faith before, during, and after the repossession of his apartment. The latter said he wanted to take it back to accommodate his mother, which was not the case.

When the lady signed her notice of end of lease, this element was known to the owner. Ultimately, the mother of the owner who was to occupy the accommodation preferred to join her daughter in New Brunswick. The former tenant was not informed of this change in situation. It was only when she returned to the place the day after her move that she noticed that there was a poster mentioning that the accommodation she had just left was finally for rent.

The owner had in fact rented this accommodation at $1,000 per month for May and June 2023 before signing a new annual lease at $1,150 per month. This without completing clause G of the lease and informing the new tenant that the previous rent was $580 per month. For the court, all this demonstrated his lack of good faith.

Take back accommodation while respecting the rules

The law allows owners to take back housing under certain conditions. A repossession of housing is authorized in particular when an owner wants to live there himself, accommodate his children or parents, accommodate any other relative or members of his family by marriage for whom he is the main support. An owner cannot take back the accommodation for other reasons, unless he agrees with the tenant to end his lease.

Certain particularities apply in particular due to the age of the tenants, or even their income. In certain specific cases, an owner can take over the accommodation inhabited by an elderly person, for example if he himself is aged 65 or over.

From a legal point of view, repossession of housing is different from eviction. Eviction may be possible when an owner wants to carry out a large-scale project, such as certain work, but under certain conditions.

Significant damages

In this case, the tenant was entitled to $25,816 in damages, i.e. $15,816 which corresponds to the difference in rent paid if she had remained in the apartment, $5,000 in moral damages and finally $5,000 in damages. punitive.

So-called “punitive” damages are awarded to punish a person who has committed an act in bad faith in order to prevent them from doing it again. This sum must not, however, exceed what is sufficient to ensure their preventive function. As for so-called “moral” damages, the court considered that the tenant suffered stress following this request to repossess her accommodation. This stress was due to the urgency of rehousing even though she had had a rhythm of life, habits and relationships in the neighborhood for a number of years.

According to the judge, “the tenant’s right to remain in the premises is part of the very essence of the residential lease. By regaining possession, the owner is legitimately relying on this right and this is why it is required that the landlord-owner demonstrate that he really intends to repossess for the purposes indicated in his opinion and that it is not a matter of pretext to achieve other ends.

Conversely, evicted tenants will have to demonstrate to the court that the resumption of their accommodation was carried out “for another purpose, that is, in bad faith, and this, by virtue of precise, serious and consistent proof”.

And the court concluded: “The only way to stop this type of transaction that is harmful to tenants is for the Court to send a clear and unequivocal message that it cannot be done. To do this, we must play in the pockets of those who enrich themselves with this type of arrangement that does not comply with the Civil Code of Quebec and is greatly detrimental to those who are its victims.”

Informative text – The law is changing! The legal information contained in this text is valid as of November 30, 2024. This text is informative, it is not legal advice. Éducaloi is a non-profit organization whose mission is to popularize the law and develop the legal skills of the population of Quebec.