In a recent judgement of the Court of Québec, Small Claims Division¹, a co-owner who has caused water damage to the building was condemned to pay the syndicate of co-owners the sum of $6,397.00 representing the insurance franchise and legal fees. In turn, the co-owner’s personal insurer was ordered to pay the sum of $5,897 to the co-owner who took legal action against him on warranty.
he tenant submitted to the Régie du logement a request for lease termination of a dwelling unfit for habitation and to declare it to have been as such since 1 October 2011. The tenant claims, also, material and moral damage and reimbursement of overpaid rent. The monetary claim arises essentially from determining the uncleanliness of the housing.
In the fall of 2010, the tenant’s housing suffers from water infiltration. A few weeks later, a new infiltration occurs. The roof was finally repaired a few weeks later.
Nowadays, everything is done more and more on the Web. The use of paper is becoming less and less popular and online banking transactions have become the rule rather than the exception.
In this context, many tenants request electronic funds transfer for the payment of their rent.
The Régie du logement ruled on whether the owner was obliged to accept this payment method.
The tenants claim a reduction in rent of $200.00 per month, damages with interest of a $1,000.00. They also ask the Court to declare the dwelling unfit for habitation and to terminate the lease as of December 15, 2009. On 5 January 2010, the building inspector for the City of Montreal issued an evacuation notice from the tenants’ housing because of the high site contamination by mould. On 21 January, the 2 parties, the landlord and the tenants, agree to terminate the lease with effect from 31 January 2010. The tenants leave the premises on 24 January 2010.
In a recent situation (1), a man asks to receive compensation for investing in two buildings of his common-law spouse, or to be declared co-owner thereof. According to the judgement, after a conjugal life together of 17 years, the couple separated in 2012. Previously, during their life together, the Mrs. had purchased a first home. According to the Mister, it is customary in his country of origin that the goods are in the name of the woman, but it was clear to him that the house belonged to the two of them and he invokes an agreement between them. So he pays half the mortgage each month for this building. Yet, according to Madame, Monsieur did not have the funds to invest in a house, apparently it was she who would have paid the notary fees, as well as the welcome tax and most of the expenditures for maintenance.