A Montreal tenant who suffered harassment as part of an attempt to permanently evict her apartment will finally be able to return to it in the coming weeks, in addition to receiving financial compensation of more than $24,000. An extraordinary decision by the Administrative Housing Tribunal (TAL), which reminds owners that they risk “severe consequences” if they attempt to carry out “renovictions” in their buildings.
“It’s still exceptional as a decision”, launches the To have to the lawyer specializing in housing law Kimmyanne Brown, visibly satisfied with the judgment rendered on 1er December by the TAL in the file of its client, tenant Maude Annie St-Laurent.
The latter has been living since 2014 in a four and a half apartment located in a building on rue Saint-Timothée, in the Ville-Marie borough. In 2019, this 18-unit building was acquired by the real estate company LS Capital Group, which began work there and tried to convince tenants to leave the premises. That’s when Maude Annie St-Laurent’s nightmare begins.
After complaining in May 2019 of water infiltration through the roof of her apartment, which increased the following year, the tenant concluded an agreement with her landlord in March 2021 to carry out ” major work” in his apartment. This agreement provided for the evacuation “for a period of approximately three months” of the tenant in exchange for financial compensation of several thousand dollars. The tenant also continues to pay the same rent even if she temporarily moves to a more expensive furnished apartment, with the landlord paying the difference.
However, the months pass, and the work drags on in the housing of the tenant, who submits a first request to the TAL on January 12, 2022. She then claims $2,500 in moral damages from the landlord in addition to ordering him to “make her accommodation fit for habitation” so that she can return to live there. She will then claim higher amounts in the following months.
“No follow-up is carried out as to a possible return date, which causes the tenant to have anxiety attacks, according to his testimony. She doesn’t feel like she’s in her business, doesn’t have a washer and dryer, and she’s been unable to paint for over a year,” the judge’s ruling describes. Luk Dufort.
A new tenant
Before the TAL, the owner’s lawyer first tries to argue — in vain — that this court has no jurisdiction in this case since the work to be done in the dwelling amounts to more than $98,000, while the maximum amount that this court can award in a case is $85,000.
However, the court subsequently learned, during a hearing held this summer, that the landlord had decided to rent Maude Annie St-Laurent’s accommodation to a new tenant under a lease signed on January 12, the same day of the appeal of the young woman before the TAL. The owner then argues that Mr.me St-Laurent cannot return to his accommodation, since it has been re-rented to someone else.
However, “the tenant is entitled to reinstatement in the dwelling, both because of the agreement that was concluded and under the law”, decides Judge Dufort. The magistrate also notes that the owner was unable to prove that M’s accommodationme St-Laurent was actually occupied by another person, while a neighboring tenant rather pleaded the opposite before the TAL, with supporting images.
Judge Dufort is thus convinced that the accommodation “is still uninhabited since the departure of the tenant”.
Harassment
The owner then decides, in July of this year, not to renew the lease of the temporary accommodation of the 52-year-old tenant, thus ignoring the agreement concluded with the latter in the spring of 2021. The tenant then finds himself paying two rents totaling about $2,000 for two consecutive months, until she managed to convince the TAL to force the landlord to respect the agreement reached last year. “It was a huge stress; emotional and financial stress,” recalls Ms.me St-Laurent, interviewed at To have to Friday.
Judge Luk Dufort thus sees there “a strategy aimed at exerting economic pressure on the tenant” so that she leaves the premises. “The Court is of the opinion that the tenant has demonstrated that she had been harassed by the landlord” so that she leaves the premises, notes the decision, in which Judge Dufort confirms that Maude Annie St-Laurent suffered an attempt at “renoviction”.
“It is important to make rental market players in Quebec aware that this is not an acceptable practice and that the consequences will be severe, in the context of a verdict relating to this type of gesture”, adds the decision. This is why the company LS Capital Group finds itself condemned to return more than $24,000 to the tenant for various types of damage.
“We are going to fight”
The judgment also calls for the tenant to be able to return to her accommodation no later than 45 days after this decision has been rendered, ie by mid-January. LS Capital Group – which did not respond to our interview requests – has 30 days to contest this decision, from the moment it was made. “I’m relieved, but it’s not over,” notes Maude Annie St-Laurent, who “still apprehends a lot of stress” for the weeks and months to come.
However, she does not plan to leave her accommodation, for which she pays $725 per month, a “very affordable” rent in this sector, she notes.
Several files remain open to the TAL concerning the last tenants of this building who are resisting eviction attempts. At least one of these tenants is currently claiming damages in this court for trouble and inconvenience as well as punitive damages.
“We are going to fight, and I think the decision that was made today is going to be a big rock on which people who are fighting [pour conserver leur logement] will be able to base themselves,” foresees Maude Annie St-Laurent.