The calculation of the delay to go on appeal following a decision of withdrawal

Article locked Published on by Me Robert Soucy

Topic(s): Legal

Note aux lecteurs : Ces articles sont des résumés de décisions rendues dans les affaires citées. Veuillez noter qu'il ne s'agit pas d'une revue de la jurisprudence et que d'autres décisions peuvent être rendues par la suite ou être différentes et changer l'état du droit. C'est également le cas si les faits ne sont pas les mêmes que ceux présentés dans l'affaire mentionnée.

The calculation of the delay to go on appeal following a decision of withdrawal

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.

The Facts
On 7 July 2010, the Rental Board renders a decision on the request of the landlady to terminate the lease, the eviction of the tenant and the recovery of the rent.

On 22 July 2010, the tenant submits a request for revocation of this decision. On August 23, 2010, the Régie du logement rejects the request for revocation of the tenant who is notified of that decision on 26 August 2010.
The attorney of the landlady argued that the request for permission of the tenant is overdue because he counts 15 days from the decision on the merits of the Régie du logement (7 July 2010) and the withdrawal request (22 July 2010), in addition to adding 20 days between the reception of the decision of the Rental Board dismissing the withdrawal of the tenant (26 August 2010) and the delivery of the request for permission to the lessor (15 September 2010). The attorney of the landlady calculates the time delay by adding 15 days plus 20 days for a total of 35 days. So, it took over 30 days to submit the request to the Court of Québec; the tenant is therefore overdue.

The Law
In support of his claim, the attorney of the landlady invokes the fourth paragraph of Section 89 of the Act respecting the Régie du logement which deals with the request for revocation:
"89, 4th paragraph: The application for revocation suspends the execution of the decision and interrupts the time allowed for appeal or review until the parties are notified of the decision."

The judge of the Court of Québec, hearing the request for permission to appeal, refers to lessons arising from the rules on time limitation provided for by Section 2875 and following of the Civil Code of Québec (C.c.Q.), since the concepts of suspension and interruption are defined therein.

The judge also refers to a legal doctrine book, "La prescription," which defines the interruption in these terms:
"The interruption is an event that occurs during the course of the limitation period and which breaks the continuity. It stops the flow of time; it is kind of a break in time. The interruption erases all the time already elapsed. Thereafter, the limitation of time begins to run again for the same time period, pursuant to the conditions outlined in Section 2903 of the C.c.Q.; it starts again from zero."i

As for suspension, the judge cites the same book of legal doctrine:
"Contrary to the interruption of the period of limitation, which, when it occurs, restarts the period of limitation again from zero, suspension only stops the period of limitation temporarily. In the words of some authors, during the period of suspension, the period of limitation is in a sleeping state. The suspension of the limitation period is a measure of fairness to protect the person who would not be able to stop the period of limitation, herself."ii

Applying the definitions and effects of suspension and interruption, the judge of the Québec Court noted the intention of the legislator, in the fourth paragraph cited above of Section 89 of the L.R.L., to see the appeal period interrupted beginning after the request for revocation of a decision of the Régie du logement until the parties are notified of the rendered decision. According to the judge, when the legislature uses the term "interruption" in this paragraph of Section 89 of the L.R.L., it can only refer to "interruption" as defined by the book of legal doctrine.

Accordingly, the time delay of the request for permission to appeal of the tenant in this instance runs from 26 August 2010, date on which the tenant has taken note of the decision of the Régie du logement rejecting his request for retractation.iii

We must add the 30 days of that notification to the date of 26 August 2010 to conclude that the tenant had until 26 September 2010 to file his request for permission to appeal at the Office of the Court of Québec. The tenant has served and filed his request to the Court of Québec on 15 September 2010. His request is not overdue and complies with the terms of Section 92 of the Act respecting the Régie du logement. The judge therefore dismissed the request submitted by the landlady for inadmissibility.


1. La prescription. Me Céline Gervais. Éditions Yvon Blais, 2009, p. 123-124
2. Opus citare, p. 154
3. Pinheiro vs. Les Placements Martin Theoliss Inc., 290 QC CQ 9105, page 4

0 Response(s) to “The calculation of the delay to go on appeal following a decision of withdrawal”

Leave a reply