Whether it is a project of a couple, with friends or family, it happens for all kinds of reasons that one decides to buy a home with others. However, this way of owning a dwelling may not be adapted according to the project concerned.
It happens indeed that a coveted building also has an interest, in addition to the investment, to make it one’s home. Every year unfortunately, some people are unable to repossess the desired dwelling, without fully understanding the reason.
Contradictory jurisprudential trend to be followed at the Administrative Housing Tribunal.
Since the coming into force of section 1959.1 of the Civil Code of Québec in 2017, which restricts by 3 cumulative conditions, the repossession of a housing, some decisions have been rendered by the Administrative Housing Tribunal, particularly as to the maximum income to be considered.
First, the 3 conditions of this section are cumulative, so if one of them is not respected by the tenant, the exception no longer applies which allows the owner to repossess the housing.
When autumn arrives, preparation for winter is going on, on most properties: pool closure, leaf raking, installation of shrub protections, gutter cleaning, etc. Some take advantage of this time for the cutting of their hedge. Such maintenance can raise questions however, especially when hedge or fence structures are near the line separating two neighbouring lots. This is all the more complicated when it comes to long-standing plantations made by previous owners. Who should maintain this hedge?
The landlord is seeking the termination of the lease and the eviction of the tenant on the grounds that the tenant disturbs the peaceful enjoyment of the premises. The tenant strongly contests the request however, on the grounds that it is rather she who is the victim of noise and harassment so that she would leave her dwelling. The parties are bound by a lease renewed until June 30, 2022.
It is article 68 of the Act respecting the Administrative Housing Tribunal that allows the administrative judge, also known as a “member” of the Tribunal, to physically travel to the premises of the dispute, to carry out a visit for the purpose of examining or assessing the facts relating to this dispute.
But how can this article apply in practice?