2023 QCCQ 7690, 2023 QCCQ 7690

El Helou c. Bérubé 2023 QCCQ 7690 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF GATINEAU LOCALITY OF GATINEAU “Civil Division” No.: 550-80-005668-237 DATE: October 30 th , 2023 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDED BY THE HONOURABLE STEVE GUÉNARD, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ MAJED EL HELOU Applicant / Landlord v.

SYLVIE BÉRUBÉ Respondent / Tenant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT on an Application for leave to appeal from a Decision rendered by the Tribunal administratif du logement ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Mr. Majed El Helou is the owner and landlord of a condominium unit located on Lucerne Boulevard in Gatineau. He enters into a contract for the lease of such dwelling with the respondent, Mrs. Sylvie Bérubé. [ 2 ] Mr.

El Helou is eventually sued, in front of the Small Claims Division of the Court of Québec by the Syndicat Place Champlain III , for various damages and fines. Mr. El Helou decides to produce a recourse in warranty against his tenant, Mrs. Bérubé, alleging that she should be held responsible for any damages that would be granted to the Syndicate. [ 3 ] Justice Stéphane D.

Tremblay, J.C.Q., partially grants the Syndicate’s claim [1] and concludes that the Small Claims Division has no jurisdiction over the recourse in warranty considering that such is directly linked with the lease of a dwelling [2] . [ 4 ] Consequently, Mr. El Helou eventually introduces his claim against Mrs. Bérubé in front of the Administrative Housing Tribunal. (hereinafter referred to as the TAL ). [ 5 ] It is established that Mr. El Helou’s claim in front of said TAL was for a total of 7 269$ [3] . [ 6 ] The hearing of the file takes place on September 1 st , 2023.

In a Decision [4] rendered on September 13 th , 2023, the TAL partially grants Mr. El Helou’s claim, for a total amount of 400$, plus the legal interest, the additional indemnity provided by

section 1619 of the Civil Code of Québec and the legal costs. [ 7 ] Dissatisfied with such a Decision rendered by the TAL, Mr. El Helou produces, a couple of days after, an “ Application for leave to appeal a Tribunal administratif du logement Decision.” He alleges that the TAL erred in law (

section 1057 C.c.Q. [5] ) and in fact [6] by deciding that Mrs. Bérubé had not been made aware of the existence of the by-laws stipulated by the Syndicate. [ 8 ] The hearing on such Application for leave to appeal is held on October 24 th , 2023. Mrs. Bérubé is absent at such hearing. ANALYSIS [ 9 ] Section 91 (1) of the Act respecting the Administrative Housing Tribunal [7] (hereinafter the Act ) provides the applicable criterion regarding such demand. Such

section states the following: 91. An appeal lies, on leave of a judge of the Court of Québec, from decisions of the Administrative Housing Tribunal when the matter at issue is one which ought to be submitted to the Court of Québec. [ 10 ] Justice Martine L. Tremblay, in the frequently quoted case of Structures Métropolitaines inc v. Lizotte [8] , explains the scope of such question or issue that ought to be submitted to the Court of Québec. Justice Tremblay states: [13] De façon générale, une question est considérée comme devant permettre un appel à la Cour du Québec lorsqu’il s’agit :

a) d’une question sérieuse et méritoire; ou

b) d’une question nouvelle; ou

c) d’une question controversée; ou

d) d’une question d’intérêt général. [14] La permission peut également être accordée lorsque la question soumise en est une qui met en cause les intérêts supérieurs de la justice, notamment lorsque la Régie refuse d’exercer sa compétence ou lorsqu’il y a faiblesse apparente de la décision attaquée, un critère qui inclut les concepts de l’erreur en droit, de la mauvaise application des règles de preuve ou du non-respect des règles de justice naturelle, incluant l’insuffisance de motivation de la décision. [15] Une erreur de droit par le juge administratif ne suffit pas, en elle-même, pour autoriser l’appel si la question n’en est pas une d’intérêt général que la Cour du Québec devrait trancher. [ 11 ] That being said, the second paragraph of

section 91 of the Act does restrict the scope of potential appeals from Decisions rendered by the TAL. Said paragraph specifically states the following: However, no appeal lies from decisions of the Tribunal concerning an application (1) the object of which is the fixing of the rent, the changing of another condition of the lease or the revision of the rent; (2) the sole object of which is the recovery of a debt contemplated in

section 73; (3) contemplated in Division II of

Chapter III, except an application contemplated in

section 39 or 54.10; (4) for authorization to deposit the rent by an application under articles 1907 and 1908 of the Civil Code . [The Court’s emphasis] [ 12 ] Debts contemplated in

section 73 of the Act relate to Small Claims. Said

section confirms such in those terms: 73. Notwithstanding the Charter of human rights and freedoms (chapter C-12 ), no advocate may act if the sole object of the application is the recovery of a debt not exceeding the jurisdiction of the Court of Québec in matters of recovery of small claims, exigible from a debtor resident in Québec by a person in his own name and account or by a tutor, a mandatary of an incapable person of full age or a temporary representative of a person of full age in his official capacity. [ 13 ] In other words, the permission to appeal cannot be granted to an Applicant when his/her sole Claim in front of the TAL can qualify as a “Small Claim” as per

section 536 of the Code of civil procedure [9] , which states: 536. An application for recovery of a claim not exceeding $15,000, excluding interest, is instituted under the rules of this Title if the plaintiff is acting in their own name and for their own account or is acting as administrator of the property of others, tutor or temporary representative or under a protection mandate. The same applies to an application seeking the resolution, resiliation or cancellation of a contract provided neither the value of the contract, nor the amount claimed, if any, exceeds $15,000.

The same applies to an application ancillary to such an application and pertaining to the revendication of property. [ 14 ] It appears, in the current instance, that Mr. El Helou’s claim in front of the TAL specifically qualifies as being a “Small Claim” as per such definition. [ 15 ] Mr. El Helou pleads that the true scope of his claim in front of the TAL was to establish whether Mrs. Bérubé had received, or not, a copy of the Syndicate’s by-laws.

That would be, as he qualifies it in front of the Court, a “matter of principle”. “Who is responsible for those damages?”, he argues. [ 16 ] However, such an argument cannot set aside the application of section 91 (2) of the Act . Indeed, it is obvious that the TAL had to decide if Mrs.

Bérubé had received a copy of said by-laws (the TAL concluded that she did not). [ 17 ] However, the same could be said in a litigation in which the TAL has to determine if one party is in a contractual violation towards the other, thus granting – or not – the monetary claim associated therewith. [ 18 ] In those circumstances, it appears clearly that Mr. El Helou’s claim in front of the TAL qualified – exclusively – as a Small Claim. [ 19 ] The wording of the Act is very clear. No permission to appeal such a Decision can be granted by the Court of Québec. [ 20 ] Consequently, Mr.

El Helou’s Application must be rejected. [ 21 ] In the circumstances, and considering Mrs. Bérubé’s absence in front of the Court, the Application will be rejected but with no legal costs. FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: REJECTS the Application for leave to appeal; THE WHOLE, without legal costs.

__________________________________ STEVE GUÉNARD, J.C.Q. Date of hearing: October 24th 2023