2023 QCCA 1328, 2023 QCCA 1328

Regan c. Progeres inc. 2023 QCCA 1328 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No.: 500-09-030741-235 ( 500-02-258861-231 ) MINUTES OF HEARING DATE: October 19, 2023 THE HONOURABLE ROBERT M. MAINVILLE, J.A. APPLICANT James Francis Regan Unrepresented Absent RESPONDENTS COUNSEL PROGERES inc. Paul Lucianni Mtre Ali Sbai ( SBAI Avocats ) Mtre SERGE LAFLAMME ( Laflamme Nadeau, Avocats ) Absent DESCRIPTION: Application for a stay of provisional execution. Clerk at the hearing : Mélanie Camiré Courtroom: RC-18 HEARING Continuation of the hearing held on October 18, 2023. The parties were excused from appearing in Court. BY THE JUDGE: Judgment – see page 3.

Mélanie Camiré, Clerk at the hearing JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The appellant filed a notice of appeal with respect to the October 13, 2023 judgment rendered by Judge Stephane Davignon of the Court of Québec, District of Montreal, which dismissed his motion for an extension of the stay of execution of the May 30, 2023 decision of the Administrative Housing Tribunal (“AHT”) ordering his eviction from a dwelling. [ 2 ] The appellant further filed an application, on an urgent basis, to obtain an order from a judge of this Court staying the execution of that eviction. * * * [ 3 ] The appellant and respondent Progeres inc. (“Progeres”) entered into a lease for a dwelling located in Westmount, Quebec.

Upon failure of the appellant to pay the agreed monthly rent of $2,700, Progeres sought the resiliation of the lease and the appellant’s eviction. After hearing the parties, a member of the AHT, Luk Dufort, concluded that the appellant owed an outstanding amount of $12,400 in unpaid rent and that, consequently, the resiliation of the lease was justified. [1] The decision of the AHT therefore (

a) provides for the resiliation of the lease of a residential dwelling to which the appellant is a party as lessee, (

b) orders the appellant’s eviction from the dwelling with all of its other occupants; (

c) orders the provisional execution of the eviction order notwithstanding appeal; and (

d) condemns the appellant to pay to the lessor all rents which remain unpaid. [ 4 ] The appellant applied for a retraction of that decision before another member of the AHT, Marie-Ève Marcil, who dismissed the application on September 19, 2023. [2] In that decision, the AHT further found that the appellant was using dilatory tactics to avoid the execution of the AHT’s prior decision of May 30, 2023. Consequently, the AHT, acting pursuant to

section 63.2 of the Act respecting the Administrative Housing Tribunal , [3] issued an order prohibiting the appellant from submitting any further application for retraction unless authorized by the chairman of the AHT or any person designated by the chairman. [ 5 ] On September 22, 2023, an eviction notice was notified to the appellant. [ 6 ] On September 27, 2023, the appellant made ex parte representations to a judge of the Court of Québec, Daniel Bourgeois, stating that his retraction proceedings were still pending before the AHT and that the eviction notice he had received had taken him by surprise.

He further stated to the judge that the rent had been paid and that the eviction should therefore be stayed. Notwithstanding the absence of respondent Progeres, Judge Bourgeois stayed, until October 13, 2023, the execution of the May 30, 2023 decision of the AHT as well as the September 22, 2023 eviction notice.

The judge further ordered the appellant to file with the Court of Québec an application for leave to appeal the decision of the AHT by October 11, 2023, and he set a hearing for this purpose to be held on that same date. [ 7 ] Rather than filing, as ordered, an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Québec, on October 10, 2023, the appellant arrived unannounced at the office of Judge Stéphane Davignon to request an ex parte 30-day extension of the stay of execution of the eviction order.

This request was denied. [ 8 ] A further hearing on the extension of the stay of execution was held on October 13, 2023 before Judge Davignon, with both parties present or represented. The appellant had not filed an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Québec. After hearing the appellant and reviewing the recording of the hearing before Judge Bourgeois, Judge Davignon concluded that the appellant lacked credibility, had misled the court as to the payment of the rent and on other matters, and showed no respect for the judiciary.

He consequently rejected the appellant’s application for an extension of the stay of execution. [ 9 ] On October 16, 2023, the appellant filed with the Court a notice of appeal with respect to Judge Davignon’s October 13, 2023 judgment . He challenges that judgment on grounds of procedural equity and on its merits. Contemporaneously with the notice of appeal, the appellant applied for a stay of execution of the eviction order.

At the appellant’s behest, an urgent hearing was held before me yesterday on this matter. * * * [ 10 ] I have serious doubts concerning the jurisdiction of this Court with respect to the appeal of the October 13, 2023 judgment rendered by Judge Davignon. Indeed, appeals from decisions of the Administrative Housing Tribunal must be initiated before the Court of Québec upon leave of a judge of that court. [4] The judgment of the Court of Québec with respect to such an appeal is itself without appeal. [5] [ 11 ] I note that under

article 365 of the Code of Civil Procedure , a panel of the Court may dismiss an appeal if the right of appeal is non-existent or improperly initiated. No application to dismiss the appeal has yet been filed. [ 12 ] However, when considering the application for a stay of execution, it is within my prerogative to dismiss it for lack of jurisdiction. In view of articles 91 , 94 and 102 of the Act respecting the Administrative Housing Tribunal , I consider myself without jurisdiction to grant a stay in this case. [ 13 ] Moreover, even if I had jurisdiction, I would have dismissed this application.

Indeed, the record before me clearly establishes the appellant’s consistent and suspect pattern of dilatory tactics before the courts to avoid the execution of the eviction order. The appellant has failed to convince me that his application has any merit. On the contrary, that application is but the continuation of his dilatory tactics to date.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE UNDERSIGNED: [ 14 ] DISMISSES the application, with legal costs. ROBERT M. MAINVILLE, J.A.