The right to receive compensation from the owner who repossesses the housing of a tenant is provided in Section 1967 of the Civil Code of Québec which reads as follows: "1967. Where the court authorizes repossession or eviction, it may impose such conditions as it considers just and reasonable, including, in the case of repossession, payment to the lessee of an indemnity equivalent to his moving expenses."
In a recent decision of the Québec Court, Small Claims Division¹, the Court confirmed that works for replacing a balcony, stairway steps, woodwork and painting in a condominium were not likely to require a vote of the assembly of co-owners under Section 1097 of the Civil Code of Québec. The defendant co-owner could not therefore refuse to pay his share of the work on the grounds that he had not voted for them.
Often being attracted by enticing offers, building owners sometimes let themselves be persuaded to sign a lease with a purchase option.
Following many disappointments of some of our members, we felt it important to inform you how this type of contract can be a source of conflict, problems and worries of all kinds.
In a recent judgment, the owner of a rental dwelling requests the cancellation of a lease and the eviction of the tenant.
Thus, the holder of an accepted offer to purchase, or the prospective buyer, entered into a lease with a tenant before becoming titleholder.
The seller, who then refuses to comply with the agreement to sell, subsequently contests the validity of this lease which was not signed by him.
A tenant submits a request for permission to appeal a decision of the Régie du logement, at the Court of Québec.
As a means of inadmissibility, the landlady claims that the tenant’s request is delayed under Sections 92 and 93 of the Act respecting the Régie du logement.
Section 92 provides that the request for permission to appeal must be accompanied by a notice of presentation, must be delivered to the opposing party and filed at the Office of the Court of Québec within 30 days of the date of the decision. Section 93 specifies that the 30-day time limit is mandatory and carries forfeiture.