A commissioner reinvents the law and trivializes the abandonment of a dwelling

An aberrant decision was recently made by the Régie du logement. Administrative judge Marilyne Trudeau refused an owners request for full compensation against a tenant who had abandoned her dwelling. The judge used article 1974 of the Civil Code, exempting a lessee from assuming the part of the rent covering the cost of services if their state of health requires them to leave.

The latter had signed an annual lease in a seniors' residence, in the amount of $ 1,340 per month, of which 58% was for services rendered. But 4 months before the end of her lease, the tenant vacated the dwelling without right. Her landlord therefore filed an application with the Régie du logement, claiming $ 4,020, corresponding to 4 months of unpaid rent including services.

Article 1974 of the Civil Code of Québec makes it clear that it is not possible to claim the portion of the rent relating to services after the departure of a tenant, but it only applies to specific situations. This is the case, for example, of an elderly person admitted to a residence offering health-related services, of a tenant who has obtained a place in low-rent housing, or of a person who can no longer occupy his home because of a handicap.

Indeed, the clear intention of Minister Marguerite Blais, during the revision of the law in 2011, was to mitigate the financial impact for a senior forced to move because of his state of health. CORPIQ participated in the debates surrounding this bill.

However, the case of this tenant is quite different from what this article recommends. She merely left, without notifying her landlord and especially without proving that her situation required her departure. The commissioner, who took office in 2017, understood this well, citing article 1975, which deals only with evictions. She did, however, apply the exceptions of section 1974 to reduce the compensation.

She quoted a decision of the Régie made a few months earlier, which ruled that "only the real loss of the landlord can be compensated." As the services had not been rendered, the landlord cannot claim these costs.

In addition, the court finds that the landlord did not demonstrate that she suffered the damages claimed. In fact, it appears that she failed to prove that she had tried to re-rent the tenant's apartment in order to minimize her losses. The Régie quoted, in particular, article 1479 of the Civil Code: "A person who is bound to make reparation for an injury is not liable for any aggravation of the injury that the victim could have avoided.".

Which is why the tenant was only sentenced to pay 2 months of rent, which is the time required to re-lease a unit, according to the Régie. But these 2 months of rent do not include the rendered services accounted for in the lease, which totals $ 1,118 instead of $ 2,680.

CORPIQ views this decision as absurd, considering the relation made by the court between an eviction and the protection offered by section 1974, freeing a tenant from paying the cost of services when he must vacate for health reasons.

If you are experiencing a similar situation, contact CORPIQ at this address.