This situation is quite common and causes many headaches to owners. When your tenant leaves for an extended period and the owner wishes to access the housing, in many cases, when the tenant has already left, it will be impossible to solve this problem before his return except in an emergency (like a fire, water damage, etc. ...). The delays at the Rental Board in cases of requests for access to housing make the process often of little use since the problem is solved more often than not when the tenant returns and, generally, well before the hearing.
"A tenant will help me getting by until the end of the month and maintain a presence in the apartment until I will return to live at the dwelling when I need it," you may tell yourself. Your neighbour may have done so, or your brother-in-law, during a buffer period when his residence was empty, and the tenant left after a year and he was able to regain possession of his house. One would like this to be as easy as it sounds. In this particular situation your neighbour or your brother-in-law were probably lucky that the tenant left at the end of his lease, quite simply. The situation could have been much different though. We can never stress it enough: the tenant has the right to maintain occupancy of the premises, that is to say, his lease is renewed automatically.
Issue at stake
Does a notice duly sent under Section 1974.1 of the Civil Code of Québec (C.c.Q.) become invalid if the complaint for sexual assault is not retained?
The tenant has left the dwelling on July 31, 2012. The owner re-rents a portion of the housing, i.e. a room, beginning in October 2012. The entire apartment is re-rented on January 1, 2013. The landlord claims $4510.00 for the loss of five months’ rent, having already deducted the rent of the room rented since 1 October 2012.
In a recent judgement from the Quebec Court, Small Claims Division¹, a co-owner was sentenced by the Court to pay damages with interest to the syndicate of co-ownership for damages caused by an improper water pipe. The co-owner alleges that it was not he who had installed this improper pipe but rather the one he bought the condo from. Sued for collateral by the current co-owner the former co-owner was ordered to pay damages plus interest in the same amount to the current co-owner. However, the current co-owner sues the syndicate to obtain reimbursement of his legal costs and compensation for loss of time, discomfort and inconvenience.
At a time when the real-estate promotors’ offers are enticing and aggressive and interest rates still affordable, the temptation is strong for tenants to become owners. With a monthly mortgage payment that approximates their monthly rent tenants could decide to buy a condo, and this often without evaluating the consequences of this on a major contract already signed, which is the LEASE! The decision taken under the influence of emotion will certainly have financial consequences for the owner and the tenants.