2021 QCCQ 5531, 2021 QCCQ 5531

Moskovic c. Benizri 2021 QCCQ 5531 COURT OF QUEBEC (Administrative and Appeal Division) CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL No: 500-80-041484-214 DATE: June 28, 2021 ______________________________________________________________________ BEFORE THE HONOURABLE ENRICO FORLINI, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ CLARA MOSKOVIC Plaintiff v.

RAYMONDE BENIZRI And CAREY FREIDMAN Defendants ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Applicant Clara Moskovic seeks leave to appeal of an interlocutory decision of the Administrative Housing Tribunal rendered on April 9, 2021 which dismissed her request for a postponement of a hearing scheduled for January 12, 2021, dismissed her application in resiliation of a lease and for damages in file No. 499972 and which continued the hearing of the Respondents’ application for specific performance and for damages to May 25, 2021 in file No. 466098 (‘’ Decision ’’ [1] ). [ 2 ] The Applicant asserts that the issue raised by the proposed appeal is one which ought to be submitted to the Court of Québec because the Decision breaches a fundamental principle of natural justice in that it deprives her of the right to be heard, namely in that she can no longer assert a full and complete defense in regards to the Respondents’ application and nor can she present her evidence in support of her own claim against them. [ 3 ] The Respondents (Tenants) counter by arguing that leave to appeal is not warranted because the situation the Applicant finds herself in was caused by her own negligence, which led the Administrative Housing Tribunal to deny her request for a postponement of the hearing held on January 12, 2021.

The Respondents argue that this hearing date had been set peremptorily with the parties’ consent, yet at the opening of the hearing, the Applicant asked for yet another continuance because she wanted to be represented by counsel. They further argue that the administrative judge properly exercised his discretion when he denied the Applicant’s request for a postponement. Analysis and Decision [ 4 ] The Applicant’s application for leave to appeal is governed by

section 91 of the Act respecting the Administrative Housing Tribunal ( R.S.Q. ch. T-15 .01).

Under this provision, an appeal from a decision of the Administrative Housing Tribunal is only possible with leave of a judge of the Court of Québec ‘’when the matter at issue is one which ought to be submitted to the Court of Québec’’. [ 5 ] Where the decision for which leave to appeal from is sought is an interlocutory decision, as is the case at the bar, the party seeking leave to appeal must also demonstrate that the decision, while rendered in the course of a proceeding, is nonetheless final and irremediable. [2] The Court is satisfied that this condition is met in the present case. [ 6 ] In all cases, leave to appeal will only be granted when the party establishes that it is in the interest of justice to grant leave and that the proposed appeal is consistent with the guiding principles of procedure, notably the principle of proportionality. [ 7 ] Leave to appeal may be granted under

section 91 of the Act where the Applicant demonstrates, prima facie , a violation of the principles of natural justice. [ 8 ] To understand the issues raised by the proposed appeal, a timeline of the litigation before the Administrative Housing Tribunal (or the Rental Board as it was called before August 31, 2020) is warranted. [ 9 ] The case before the Administrative Housing Tribunal started in June 2019 when the Respondents filed an application seeking specific performance enjoining their landlord, the Applicant, to repair a number of defects relating to the leased premises.

[ 10 ] The Respondents’ application was amended a number of times between September 2019 and November 2020 to add a claim for compensatory and punitive damages and an order enjoining the Applicant to cease harassing behavior toward them. [ 11 ] In January 2020, the Applicant filed her own application and sought the resiliation of the lease, $16,000 in material damages and $8,000 in punitive damages. [ 12 ] Both cases were joined by order of the Administrative Housing Tribunal. [ 13 ] Sometime in the fall 2020, the parties received a notice of hearing informing them that the hearing was scheduled for November 17, 2020. [ 14 ] By letter dated November 11, 2020, the Applicant filed a letter with the Tribunal seeking a postponement of the November 17 hearing on the grounds that her husband was ill. [ 15 ] The Respondents contested the request for a postponement. [ 16 ] On November 17, 2020, the parties appeared before the Administrative Housing Tribunal and the Applicant reiterated her request for a postponement. [ 17 ] Despite the Respondents’ objection, the Tribunal granted the request for a postponement and rescheduled the hearing peremptorily to December 8, 2020 at 9 AM, with a second day of hearing scheduled for January 12, 2021 if necessary. [3] The following case management order was issued by the administrative judge [4] : • « Si la locatrice [the Applicant] ne peut se présenter à l’audience du 8 décembre 2020 fixée péremptoirement, elle peut demander une visioconférence auprès du Tribunal avant le 27 novembre 2020 et devra aviser Me Joëlle Kaneza [the Respondents’ lawyer]. • Si une demande est adressée par la locatrice en ce sens, elle devra communiquer ses pièces à Me Kaneza avant le 3 décembre 2020 et celle-ci communiquera les siennes au plus tard le 5 décembre 2020.

La locatrice devra s’assurer d’expédier au Tribunal ses pièces au plus tard le 4 décembre 2020. • Me Kaneza est aussi autorisée à présenter une demande avant le 27 novembre 2020 pour que soit entendu son témoin Marc Rodrigue en visioconférence. • Un deuxième rôle est fixé au 12 janvier 2021 à 9 h dans l’éventualité où un ajournement s’avère nécessaire. » [ 18 ] On December 8, 2020, the parties appeared before the administrative judge as scheduled. [ 19 ] The Respondents adduced their evidence in support of their application. [5] [ 20 ] The December 8 hearing was adjourned to January 12, 2021 to allow for the Applicant to cross examine the Respondents’ witnesses and to adduce her evidence in support of her claim in file No. 499972. [6] [ 21 ] On January 12, 2021, at the opening of the hearing, Me Maxime Morissette informed the administrative judge that he would represent the Applicant.

He also asked for a postponement of the hearing given that he was not ready to proceed, having been retained by the Applicant only on January 7, 2021 and having received from the Respondents’ lawyer voluminous exhibits on January 8, 2021. The Applicant was not present. [ 22 ] The Respondents objected to the request for a postponement.

They argued that the hearing was scheduled peremptorily and that during the December 8 hearing, the Applicant had been warned that if she wanted to retain counsel, the lawyer had to be ready and available to proceed on January 12, 2021. [ 23 ] The matter was taken under advisement. [ 24 ] On April 9, 2021, the Administrative Housing Tribunal issued the Decision and refused the Applicant’s request for a postponement. Moreover, given that the Applicant was not prepared to present evidence in support of her application in file No. 499972, the administrative judge dismissed her claim.

The matter was continued to May 25, 2021 to allow for the cross-examination of the Respondents’ witnesses and for oral arguments. [ 25 ] The Applicant seeks leave to appeal from this Decision. [ 26 ] For the reasons that follow, I do not agree that leave to appeal should be granted. [ 27 ] While the application for leave to appeal rests on an alleged breach of the principle of natural justice, fundamentally what is at stake in this case is whether the administrative judge properly exercised his discretion in refusing to grant the Applicant’s request for a postponement of the January 12, 2021 hearing. [ 28 ] It is a well-established principle of law that a judge’s decision to grant or to refuse an application for a postponement is an exercise of discretion and of case management. [7] [ 29 ] Trial judges enjoy a high degree of discretion in deciding whether or not to grant a postponement, and appeal courts give great deference to such decisions. [8] [ 30 ] At the stage of an application for a leave to appeal a decision refusing a request for a postponement, the part seeking leave to appeal must make out a prima facie case that the trial judge’s discretion was exercised in a clearly improperly manner. [9]

[ 31 ] Under sections 28 and 29 of the Rules of procedure of the Administrative Housing Tribunal Act respecting the Administrative Housing Tribunal , a party who wishes to have a hearing postponed to a later date must provide the tribunal with the written consent of the other party. [ 32 ] If this consent is not obtained, the only recourse of the party is to make a written or oral request for postponement at the outset of the hearing and the administrative judge will make his determination in the exercise of his or her management authority based on the facts supporting the request for a postponement. [ 33 ] The Applicant has not demonstrated prima facie that the administrative judge’s decision to refuse her postponement was exercised in a clearly improper manner. [ 34 ] The audio recording of the December 8, 2020 hearing establishes the following [10] : • The Applicant was not represented by counsel during the hearing; • When the Respondents finished presenting their evidence, there was only 15 minutes left in the time allotted for the hearing and the parties were informed by the judge that the hearing would have to be continued on January 12, 2021; • The Applicant informed the Tribunal that she intended to be represented by a lawyer on January 12.

The judge made it clear to her that this hearing is scheduled peremptorily. He specifically informed the Applicant that if she intended to retain a lawyer, the lawyer must be available and ready to proceed on January 12, otherwise no postponement would be granted on the grounds that her lawyer did not have time to prepare for the hearing. The Applicant clearly understood this and accepted this condition.

More importantly, she informed the administrative judge that she already had a lawyer retained. [11] [ 35 ] The January 12, 2021 hearing was held via videoconference given the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic. [ 36 ] The Respondents are present via videoconference and are represented by a lawyer. [ 37 ] The Applicant does not attend the hearing. She is represented by Mtre Morissette. [ 38 ] At the outset of the hearing, the Applicant’s lawyer made a verbal request for a postponement.

He argued that a postponement was justified for the following reasons: • Although the hearing was scheduled peremptorily, the judge had discretion to postpone it to a later date given that “new” facts justified a postponement; • These “new” facts are: he was only retained by the Applicant on January 7 and had not been afforded enough time to prepare his client’s case.

On that same day, he communicated with the Respondents’ lawyer to inform her that he might ask for a postponement of the January 12 hearing and asked her to send him all the documents pertaining to the file because he was not able to obtain them from the Applicant since she did not have the technological means to send them to him by email and he could not obtain them from her in person given the pandemic.

He received the documents on January 8, but given the voluminous nature of the documents (203 pages), the amounts at stake, and the interests of justice, a postponement was warranted to allow him to take cognisance of the file and to prepare the Applicant’s case; • If the postponement was refused, this would jeopardize the Applicant’s right to be heard. [ 39 ] The administrative judge heard the Respondents’ lawyer’s arguments and took the matter under advisement. [ 40 ] On April 9, 2021, the Administrative Housing Tribunal judge rendered his decision and denied the Applicant’s request for a postponement for the following reasons: [27] Le Tribunal estime que le motif invoqué par la locatrice s’apparente à de la négligence ou de l’insouciance sachant que deux dates pour l’audition de la cause ont été fixées à son encontre péremptoirement et ayant particulièrement reçu des instructions

sommaires du Tribunal à ce sujet lors de l’audience tenue le 8 décembre 2020, la locatrice aurait dû procéder avec diligence pour se constituer un avocat disponible aux dates prévues et prêt à procéder au jour fixé pour l’audience. [28] Il peut être parfois concevable de reporter une audience. Toutefois, toutes les circonstances ne s’y prêtent pas forcément. [29] Un justiciable, de même que son procureur à

titre d’officier de justice, à l’obligation de respecter la date fixée pour enquête et audition devant le Tribunal pour se faire entendre. [30] Le présent dossier a nécessité plusieurs journées d’audiences et dont une première audience fut reportée à la demande de la locatrice et dont les dates d’audiences réservées occupent deux rôles complets c’est-à-dire d’une durée de six heures et ces audiences fixées péremptoirement contre la locatrice, défenderesse et demanderesse dans une demande introduite le 8 janvier 2020 en résiliation de bail, dommages matériels (16 000 $) et dommages punitifs (8 000 $) et dont le litige ne dénote aucune complexité particulière. [31] Le Tribunal estime que toutes ces circonstances précitées font obstacles au report de l’audience. [32] Quant au droit à l'avocat, il n'est pas absolu et la locatrice doit faire preuve de diligence dans la défense de ses droits et pour assurer sa représentation à l'audience. [33] En effet, ni le droit à une remise ni celui d’être représenté par avocat n’est absolu.

Le professeur Patrice Garant s’exprime ainsi à ce sujet : « Le refus pour un tribunal inférieur d’accorder l’ajournement pourra donc constituer une atteinte à la règle audi alteram partem si cet

ajournement est nécessaire à la production d’une preuve ou d’une défense complète, si la

partie elle-même n’est pas fautive, si le fait de procéder immédiatement risque d’entraîner pour elle un préjudice sérieux, à moins qu’il n’y ait urgence pour le tribunal, eu égard aux circonstances, à procéder promptement. » « [...] le droit à la représentation par avocat devant une cour de justice ou tout autre tribunal quasi judiciaire n’est pas un droit absolu. En effet, les tribunaux ont établi que l’octroi de ce droit dépend des circonstances [...] Lorsque les circonstances le justifient, le tribunal ne peut cependant le refuser au seul motif qu’il détient un pouvoir discrétionnaire de le faire.

Il appartient au tribunal, à défaut de texte de loi ou de règlement à l’effet contraire, d’apprécier, suivant les circonstances et la nature du litige, si l’administré peut adéquatement se faire entendre, faire valoir ses moyens ou sa défense sans cette représentation ou cette assistance. » [34] Dans un souci de saine administration de la justice, le Tribunal se doit d’entendre les causes soumises avec célérité, d’autant plus que la demande des locataires a été introduite le 12 juin 2019 et celle de la locatrice le 8 janvier 2020 et que six heures d’audiences ont été réservées et fixées péremptoirement à la suite d’une première audience remise à la demande de la locatrice elle-même. [35] Pour les motifs susmentionnés, le Tribunal se doit de rejeter la demande de remise et d’entendre la cause. [Reference omitted-underlining added] [ 41 ] Moreover, the administrative judge also decided: [37] CONSIDÉRANT les argumentaires présentés par les parties à l’audience; [38] CONSIDÉRANT le rejet de la demande de remise de la locatrice; [39] CONSIDÉRANT l’absence de preuve au soutien de la demande de la locatrice dans le dossier 499972 31 20200108; [40] CONSIDÉRANT que les locataires ont déclaré leur preuve close et qu’il y a lieu de disposer de leur demande dans le dossier 466098 31 20190612, il y a lieu de convoquer les parties pour la présentation de leurs plaidoiries eu égard à cette demande; POUR CES MOTIFS, LE TRIBUNAL : Dossier 466098 31 20190612 [41] DEMANDE au maître des rôles de convoquer à nouveau les parties pour la présentation de leurs plaidoiries dans le dossier 466098 31 20190612 susmentionné et de prévoir une audience d’une durée de 120 minutes; Dossier 499972 31 20200108 [42] REJETTE la demande de la locatrice; [43] La locatrice assume les frais de cette demande. [ 42 ] The Applicant has not demonstrated any error in this decision.

She has failed to establish that the Administrative Housing Tribunal judge exercised his discretion to refuse the postponement in a clearly improper manner. [ 43 ] On the contrary, his reasons for judgement show that he exercised his discretion in an appropriate manner and considered all the relevant factors. [ 44 ] In Lacombe v.

Simard , Justice Richard Landry refused to grant leave to appeal in a case where the circumstances were similar to the present case [12] : [30] Les règles de justice naturelle, et notamment le droit d'être entendu, justifient-elles dans le présent cas que monsieur Lacombe ait l'opportunité de se " reprendre en appel" ? Je ne le crois pas. [32] L'appel n'est pas là pour pallier à la négligence d'une

partie qui n'a pas apporté en première instance les preuves qu'elle aurait pu y apporter pour contrer la preuve de la

partie adverse. [33] Le droit d'être entendu et de faire valoir ses moyens est un droit fondamental qui doit être protégé dans la mesure où celui qui l'invoque fait le nécessaire pour s'en prévaloir. En ne se présentant pas à l'audition, monsieur Lacombe se privait de son droit et ne peut que s'en prendre à lui-même si la décision ne lui a pas été favorable. [References omitted] [ 45 ] In Gluck v.

Bélanger , Justice Paquet also refused to grant leave to appeal of a Rental Board decision in similar circumstances [13] : [14] En ce qui a trait à sa prétention, quant au non-respect de la règle audi alteram partem , force est de constater que la demanderesse a eu la possibilité d’être entendue.

Elle a été dûment avisée de la date d’audience. [15] Son représentant a présumé qu’en écrivant à la Régie la lettre reproduite précédemment, la remise lui serait accordée automatiquement. [16] Or, la Régie explique dans sa décision pourquoi elle a procédé malgré l’absence du représentant de la demanderesse (le soussigné note que la personne qui recherche la permission d’appeler est Hannah Gluck, dont le nom n’apparaît ni dans la demande présentée à la Régie du logement ni dans la décision de la Régie du logement).

[17] Quoiqu’il en soit, le régisseur, en motivant sa décision comme il l’a fait, a exercé correctement sa discrétion judiciaire. [18] Les circonstances propres au dossier sous étude ne permettent pas de conclure que la Régie a fait défaut de respecter la règle audi alteram partem. Essentiellement, si la demanderesse n’a pas été entendue devant la Régie c’est qu’elle a décidé de ne pas se présenter à l’audition et de présumer que celle-ci remettrait la cause de ce seul fait. [19] La Régie, devant une telle demande, doit exercer sa discrétion et, comme mentionné précédemment, elle l’a exercée correctement.

La discrétion dont a fait preuve la Régie tient compte, de surcroît, des droits du locataire d’être entendu. [ 46 ] Where a case is peremptorily set, the judge must consider whether the new grounds for postponement now being advanced are sufficiently important and serious to justify a request for postponement. [ 47 ] This decision is discretionary and its scope of analysis is narrower and more exceptional than if the first postponement had not been peremptorily set. [14] [ 48 ] During the December 8 hearing, the Applicant clearly knew and agreed that the hearing would be continued to January 12, 2021 and that if she were to be represented by counsel, her lawyer would have to be ready to proceed on that day. [ 49 ] She not only accepted this condition but added that she already had retained a lawyer.

Either she was not forthright with the administrative judge on December 8 or alternatively the lawyer who had already agreed to represent her on that date could not act on January 12, 2021 and she decided to retain Mtre Morissette. [ 50 ] However, if the latter occurred, this evidence was not presented to the administrative judge on January 12. [ 51 ] Moreover, the fact that 200 pages of materials were sent by the Respondents’ lawyer to the Applicant’s lawyer on January 8, 2021 does not constitute compelling reasons to warrant yet another postponement. [ 52 ] In fact, these so called “new” documents had already been communicated to the Applicant on December 4, 2020. [15] If she failed to communicate them to her lawyer between December 4, 2020 and January 8, 2021, this is a result of her own negligence. [ 53 ] The Applicant did not raise compelling new grounds for postponement on January 12. [ 54 ] The Court believes that the administrative judge’s conclusion that the Applicant was negligent or careless in her decision to retain counsel was a reasonable one and was supported by the evidence.

The Court adds that the Applicant also showed lack of diligence in failing to send her lawyer the documents that she had received on December 4 and that he needed to prepare for the case. In addition, the Applicant was careless in failing to attend the January 12 hearing, presuming that her request for a postponement would be granted. [ 55 ] Her right to be heard was not denied before the Administrative Housing Tribunal, but rather she forfeited this right through her negligence.

The administrative judge weighed all the relevant factors and properly exercised his discretion in refusing the Applicant’s request for a postponement. The appeal has practically no chance of success. [ 56 ] Finally, it is not in the interest of justice to grant leave. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 57 ] DISMISSES Clara Moskovic’s Application for Leave to Appeal from the decision of the Administrative Housing Tribunal rendered on April 9, 2021 in cases No. 466098 and No. 499972. __________________________________ ENRICO FORLINI, J.C.Q. Mtre Maxime Morissette Ogilvie Morissette Avocats inc.

Plaintiff’s lawyer Mtre Joelle Kaneza Me Joëlle Kaneza Defendants’ lawyer Date of hearing: May 20 , 2021