Eight neighbors in solidarity, exchanges of information and the refusal of seven of them to terminate their lease. The outcome of an emerging showdown was faster than the tenants of 794 rue Malouin in Sherbrooke had hoped: Tuesday evening, two owners met all the occupants and said they wanted to go back.
The tenants sounded quite different after the one-on-one meetings last week, a few days after the building’s deed of sale was signed. It was a third party who knocked on the doors of the building, presenting himself as the owner: neither he nor those who really own the building wanted to clarify his role with the To have to.
Five of the eight tenants of this building told us about similar schemes used during these meetings. This is how Tristan Desautels, already denounced by several tenants in Montreal and Sherbrooke for his eviction maneuvers, who tried to convince them one by one to leave their apartment as early as the 1er January and 1er February in exchange for compensation of $ 500.
He explained to them that major work was going to take place in the building in January and that it would be “unlivable” to stay there, in his own words. “He told us that there would be cuts in electricity, water, heating. That noise would prevent us from working and living, and that it would be from 7 am to 7 pm ”, relates Denise Rousseau, a 74-year-old woman who lives with her grandson.
He then invited the tenant to sign a termination agreement for dates varying between 1er January and 1er April, depending on the apartment. “He told us we were the last to sign. We said to ourselves that we could not dispute, and we did not even know that we had the right not to sign, ”explains a tenant who asked to remain anonymous, for fear of not finding any housing in the future.
These are the only tenants who signed the document submitted by Mr. Desautels. The two roommates bitterly regret it and had “the impression of being had” by signing on the spot, while they felt under pressure. One of them claims that her consent was not informed: “The conversation was about renovations, when the paper broke our lease. “
Mr. Desautels denied owning the building at 794 rue Malouin and spoke of a “misunderstanding” when The duty asked him about it. He then refused to answer our questions. His name was not on the bill of sale either, but he can be distinctly heard introducing himself as a “new owner” in audio recordings we have viewed. Emails sent to tenants from his business coordinator also confirm that he was described as a landlord.
The two owners listed on the deed of sale, Jonathan Cloutier and Dominic Bédard, presented themselves to the tenants on Tuesday evening, having heard that they were organizing to resist the eviction. The majority of them were present when the two men said they wanted to “continue discussions” rather than terminating the leases. Neither Mr. Cloutier nor Mr. Bédard responded to our calls and messages.
Pressures and precedents
” [Tristan Desautels] told us “whether you are there or not, we are starting the work”. He threatened to move us from one apartment to another during the renovations if we could not find a common agreement, ”recounts Julie Roy, another tenant.
She has repeatedly asked to receive written opinions on the duration of the work, the possibilities of temporary evacuation and the corresponding compensation, as provided for by the Administrative Court of Housing (TAL). “He replied that this is not how it works and that we mix the rules”, continues Mme Roy.
For other tenants, he insisted instead on the presence of mold in the walls, but did not present an air quality test or an inspection report to this effect. “He told us that our health is threatened in the short term,” said another tenant on condition of anonymity for fear of repercussions on his job.
He felt “stuck” and “helpless”, “stressed” above all, while housing is an essential need, he emphasizes.
Mme Rousseau for its part indicated to Tristan Desautels the deadlines before the eviction, which are six months before the end of a one-year lease in the case of an eviction for subdivision, substantial expansion or change of assignment. “He told me I was wrong,” she says.
In a conversation very similar to that with Mme Roy, the young man claimed that if she wanted to stay he would “move” her from apartment to apartment, as relocation would be at his discretion. “He asked me if I liked to box every three weeks. They were thinly veiled threats. A law stipulates that seniors aged 70 and over are protected from evictions provided they have lived in the home for at least 10 years and have a low income. In the case of Mme Rousseau, Mr. Desautels made him understand that she was not protected, as she has not occupied the accommodation for so long.
“I quickly understood that it was to make money. We saw them empty the buildings opposite this summer ”, slips Mme Rousseau.
Tristan Desautels indeed has three buildings in the same street, according to the land register, all registered under companies with different numbers, a completely legal practice.
A former resident of one of them – 803, rue Malouin -, mother of five, says she had to move after a year of occupation. “It was a great stress, because my children were already used there. He told us that it was not possible to stay, so we left, ”says Djamila Adamou. The family did not know her rights, she said, and therefore did not seek compensation either. “Most of our neighbors are gone too. “
Last April, tenants from other buildings in Montreal and Sherbrooke had told in our pages that they had left their apartment for similar reasons. A young woman was also denied access to her home even before moving in, after asking the TAL to set her rent. The price had, in fact, increased by $ 470 compared to the last tenant.
Mr. Desautels then explained that he had rented twice. Two weeks later, the unit was vacant and remains vacant to this day, according to two neighbors.
Little recourse
It is not illegal to sign a mutual agreement agreement between a landlord and a tenant. “To terminate a lease, there are not necessarily conditions. We remain in a regime of contractual freedom ”, points out Me Daniel Crespo Villarreal, lawyer and lecturer in housing law.
If there have been false declarations, there may however be a defect in consent to this signature, but little recourse remains to have this fraud recognized. In his practice, the lawyer regularly sees owners “raising the scarecrow” of major works, but few checks of their completion are carried out.
“Contractual freedom does not erase the asymmetry of power that exists between a landlord and a tenant,” he notes. It is often a war of attrition that gets the best of those who would like to stay. “
At 794 rue Malouin, the tenants “have chosen to talk to each other,” notes Denise Rousseau. “I chose not to sign out of social solidarity, and that’s the great part of our experience. “