2018 QCCQ 8316, 2018 QCCQ 8316

Smith c. Rossdeutscher 2018 QCCQ 8316 COURT OF QUÉBEC (Administrative and Appeal Division) CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF MONTRÉAL Civil Division NO: 500-80-037907-186 DATE: OCTOBER 17, 2018 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDED BY THE HONOURABLE JULIE VEILLEUX, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ CLIFFORD SMITH Petitioner vs.

LIONEL ROSSDEUTSCHER Respondent ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ON AMENDED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE RÉGIE DU LOGEMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Mr. Clifford Smith (Petitioner) requests the permission to appeal the decision of the Régie du logement rendered on July 9, 2018 (the Decision) granting Mr. Lionel Rossdeutscher’s (Respondent) demand to resiliate the lease, expulsing Petitioner from the premises, condemning him to pay $2,100 of rent and ordering the provisional execution of the decision.

CONTEXT [ 2 ] The Court was not provided with the transcripts of the hearings but was given access to the Minutes. The chronology can be summarized as follows. [ 3 ] On May 7, 2018, a first hearing began and Petitioner was then represented by Mtre. Abdou Gaye. The hearing was postponed and the Minutes show the following remarks : « Prévoyez 120 minutes. Le locataire nie sa signature sur un acte juridique. Il prétend que c’est une contrefaçon. Je remets l’original afin que les experts puissent le consulter. » [1] [ 4 ] A few days later, Petitioner revoked Mtre.

Gaye’s mandate and showed up unrepresented at the following hearing, which took place on July 5 th , 2018. At the time, Petitioner was present with one witness and Respondent, a member of the Quebec Bar, was also present with his writing expert. [ 5 ] The Decision referred to the lease and to the rent in the amount of $705 monthly and underlined that on March 20 th , 2016, Petitioner signed a “notice of rental lease increase” where he agreed to a $100/monthly increase.

Petitioner denied signing said notice but the writing expert heard on behalf of Respondent was of the opinion that the signature on the notice was Petitioner’s. The decision indicates that following the proof offered, Petitioner owes $2400 ($100 a month since August 1 st , 2016). [ 6 ] The Régie du logement concluded that it was Petitioner’s signature on the notice and that he was late for more than three weeks for the payment of his rent. In view of the proof adduced at the hearing, the resiliation of the lease was justified as per

section 1971 C.c.Q. and condemned Petitioner to pay Respondent $2,400 ($100 a month since August 1 st , 2016). [ 7 ] Considering the prejudice suffered by Respondent, the provisional execution of the Decision was ordered. [ 8 ] Shortly after he received the decision, Petitioner filed the Motion for revocation of judgment (the Motion). On August 30 th , 2018, the Régie du logement dismissed said Motion.

[ 9 ] Petitioner then contended that the judge erred in his appreciation of the proof and suggested that a witness be heard to corroborate his version with respect to the signing of the notice. [ 10 ] The Régie du logement underlined the fact that Petitioner was informed of the possibility to have his own expert at the first hearing, at which point a postponement was granted in his favor. [ 11 ] After referring to

section 89 of the LRL , the decision referred to the fact that the Motion should not be mingled with the appeal. From the Régie du logement’s standpoint, the arguments put forward by Petitioner are those of an appeal rather than of a revocation of judgment. ANALYSIS [ 12 ] The Amended Motion is founded on

section 91 of the Act respecting the Régie du logement ( LRL ) [2] which provides that a permission to appeal can be granted when the matter at issue is one which ought to be submitted to the Court of Québec. [ 13 ] Petitioner argues that the following questions should be submitted to the Court of Québec : 1. Did the administrative judge summarily informed the parties on the rule of evidence and provided the Petitioner with fair and impartial assistance to ensure a fair and just trial as stated by the LRL ? 2.

Did the administrative judge erred in concluding that the Petitioner had signed a document accepting a $100 rent increase and was late in paying his rent? [ 14 ] In order to decide whether these issues are ones which ought to be submitted to the Court of Québec, the Court must decide if the questions raised are serious, new, of general interest or refer to a controversy in the actual jurisprudence.

The Court must also analyse the arguments submitted in order to avoid an appeal which will most likely end in failure [3] . [ 15 ] There are additional criterias to be considered in deciding a Motion to appeal such as the apparent weakness of the decision, errors in the appreciation of facts and administration of proof, breach of natural justice, refusal of the Régie du logement to exercise his jurisdiction and/or insufficiency of the motivation of the decision [4] . [ 16 ] With respect to the first question, the Court finds that it is not one which is ought to be submitted to the Court of Quebec. [ 17 ] It is important to note that : - A postponement was granted on May 5 th , 2018 in order for the notice to be reviewed by the experts and at the time, Petitioner was represented; - In addition, when the hearing took place on July 5 th , 2018, although Petitioner was not represented, he knew that the issue related to the validity of his signature would be addressed. [ 18 ] In view of the foregoing and considering the information available, the Court finds that Petitioner was not taken by surprise at the July 5 th , 2018 hearing and that the Régie du logement provided proper assistance as per

section 63 of the LRL . The first question raised by Petitioner is neither serious, new or of general interest and there is no prima facie proof of any breach of natural justice considering the Minutes of the hearings. [ 19 ] The second question relates to the conclusion drawn by the Régie du logement with respect to the $100 a month rent increase.

The appeal with respect to the second question seeks for the Court to appreciate again the proof offered before the Régie du logement and its evaluation of the credibility of witnesses. [ 20 ] This question is a private one, it is neither new nor serious and is not one which is ought to be submitted to the Court of Quebec. [ 21 ] Finally, although Respondent presented an argument based on the delay to file the Motion for leave to appeal, the Court will not address this argument considering his conclusion regarding the questions raised by Petitioner. [ 22 ] In view of the foregoing, the Court dismisses the Amended Motion for leave to appeal and considering the absence of provision regarding costs, the Court cannot adjucate them.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: DISMISSES the Amended Motion for leave to appeal the decision rendered by the Régie du logement on July 9 th , 2018. THE WHOLE , without costs. ____________________________

JULIE VEILLEUX, J.C.Q. Mtre. Claude Lévesque Counsel for the Petitioner Mr. Lionel Rossdeutscher Respondent Hearing date: October, 10 2018