In the decision Jetté v. Jakani 1, the landlord applied for the recovery of the rent (830 $) as well as the rent due at the time of the hearing, the cancellation of the lease due to delays of more than three weeks in the payment of the rent, as well as the provisional execution of the decision notwithstanding appeal.
The hearing on the landlord's application was held on January 26, 2011.
At the end of this hearing, after the Court heard the representations of
the two parties, the tenant requested that his file be joined with that
of the landlord. He presents to the Court an application to join the
files filed at the Régie two days before the hearing. This application
bears the number 31 110124 030 NR 110124. Dated January 26, 2011, it
still does did not appear on the roll of the Court.
The tenant's application bears file number 31 110124 030 G. It was filed
on January 24, 2011, i.e. two days before the hearing. The tenant
claimed moral damages for trouble and inconvenience, as well as punitive
damages. In his application, the tenant alleged:
1. Abuse of procedure
2. Moral damages of 1,500 $ and punitive damage for 1,000$
4. Joining of the two applications for a joint hearing of January 26, 2011. ”
At the hearing of January 26, 2011, the Court indicates to the parties
that it will render a written decision on the application to join the
files. It informs the parties that if the application for joining is
dismissed, a decision will be rendered on the landlord's application .
If it is not, the parties will be summoned again on the two files.
The tenant argued that his application and his defense to the landlords
application are closely related. He adds that the Court must consider
the costs and the proportionality. An application for joining of files
can be admissible by the Court if it meets the requirements of article
57 of the Act respecting the Régie du logement which stipulates:
57. Several applications between the same parties, in which the
questions at issue are substantially the same, or for matters which
might properly be combined in one application, may be joined by order of
the board on such conditions as it may fix.
The board may also order that several applications made before it,
whether or not between the same parties, be heard at the same time and
decided on the same evidence, or that the evidence in one be used in
another, or that one application be heard and decided first, and the
others meanwhile stayed.
The Court concludes that the request for joining of the tenant is not
admissible within the meaning of article 57 of the Act respecting the
Régie du logement. The landlord's application is for recovery of the
rent and one for cancellation based on a delay of more than three weeks
of payment of the rent, as well as other frequent delays in doing so.
The tenant's application is for damages.
The questions in litigation are not, substantially the same. The proof
which must be made is completely different for each file. It is not a
question of matters which can be suitably joined together in one
hearing. The Court considers that it is un-necessary to join the two
applications, and that there is no risk of a contradictory judgement.
The decision of the Court is consistent with decisions already rendered
by other administrative judges of the same Court. In a situation similar
to this one, administrative judge Christine Bissonnette refused to join
two files together. One asked for the joinder of a claim for damages
against the landlord with one for recovery of rent against a tenant. She
noted, as it is the case here, that an “analysis of these applications
establishes that the questions in litigation are different and that it
is un-necessary to join them together. ” 2
Administrative judge Danielle Dumont ruled in the same manner as did
judge Bissonnette in a similar file3. She refused to join together an
application for damages by the tenant for harassment with an
application by the landlord for recovery of rent and to cancel the
Administrative judge Francine Jodoin refused an application to join
files in the decision Maher v. Soucy 4. The Court shares the opinion of
the latter to the effect that it is un-necessary to join files where
“… the respective applications of the parties can validly be heard and
separately judged, without risk of contradictory judgement…”.
The tenant's application will follow its course according to the roll which the Master of the roll will consider convenient.
131 100923 016 G, 31 110124 030 NR 110124, February 23, 2011, Me Andre Monty, administrative judge
2 Balassanian v. Bouchoutsos, 31 070309 076 NR 070312, Montreal, on May 21, 2008.
3 Lagacé v. Poulin, 31 011227 113 G, Montreal,
4 31 020327 080 G, Montreal, on May 17, 2002.