On September 30, The duty published an interview with the Minister responsible for Housing, France-Élaine Duranceau. We learned that the minister persists in wanting to withdraw the right to transfer a lease, despite popular discontent and pleas during public hearings. She argues that another existing mechanism has the potential to regulate rent increases, namely clause G. However, it is clear that this clause cannot be a sufficient tool to control rents.
The “G clause”
“Clause G” is legally binding under article 1896 of the Civil Code of Quebec: “The landlord must, when concluding the lease, give the new tenant a notice indicating the lowest rent paid during the 12 months preceding the start of the lease. » This clause is included on the third page of the lease forms to make the work of landlords easier. If the rent is lower than that requested by the landlord, it is possible for the new tenant to request a rent fixing from the Administrative Housing Tribunal (TAL). However, this request must be made within 10 days of signing the lease. If the landlord makes a false declaration (which constitutes fraud) or leaves the section completely blank, there is a 2-month delay.
These constraints and procedures cause a lot of headaches for tenants and almost completely dilute the scope of article 1896. Indeed, in cases where the section is empty or filled in incorrectly, the tenant must have on hand proof of the old amount of rent to argue before the TAL. However, to do this, the tenant must rely on the fact that the former tenant still has a copy of the lease, which is far from always being the case. Otherwise, the tenant must be creative and find a way to contact the former tenant, since their contact details are not systematically offered. Finally, it is unreasonable to think that the majority of these tenants turn into investigators to obtain the amount of rent.
What’s more, Minister Duranceau cannot take for granted that clause G is known. In fact, the newspaper article The duty cited a Vivre en ville survey revealing that 45% of tenants questioned are unaware of the existence of clause G. How can tenants defend themselves if they do not know the tools at their disposal?
Fixation “
So, you will tell me, why not unclog the judicial system and promote good relations with the landlord? Well, if healthy negotiation with your landlord is more than desirable, it is nevertheless illusory to think that the tenant finds himself in a position of power to his advantage: in our rental situation, an owner can very easily find another tenant who accept the increase. The latter remains no less abusive.
Finally, Minister Duranceau, by her own admission, does not know how to strengthen compliance with clause G and argues that tenants are “fixated” on the transfer of lease. For my part, I am of the opinion that tenants are “fixated” on a legitimate mechanism, recognized by case law (e.g.: Grégorio v. Bedard) and allowing real rent control. Can the same be said of clause G?