2017 QCCQ 2857, 2017 QCCQ 2857

Jian c. Cromwell 2017 QCCQ 2857 COURT OF QUÉBEC Administrative and Appellate Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF Montreal TOWN OF Montreal Civil Division No: 500-80-034130-162 DATE: January 11, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ BEFORE THE HONOURABLE SCOTT HUGHES, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ MING JIAN Plaintiff v.

CROMWELL Defendant -and- MOONCREST INVESTISSEMENT INC. -and- RÉGIE DU LOGEMENT ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ON AN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE RÉGIE DU LOGEMENT (Article 91 of an Act respecting the Régie du logement ) [1] ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Ming Jian seeks leave to appeal a decision [2] of the Régie du logement (“the Régie”) granting, in part, her application to reduce her rent. I.

ARTICLE 91 OF THE Act [ 2 ]

Article 91 of the Act states: 91. An appeal lies, on leave of a judge of the Court of Québec, from decisions of the Régie du logement when the matter at issue is one which ought to be submitted to the Court of Québec . […] [Emphasis added] [ 3 ] The relevant criteria in the application of this

article are well known [3] . For the Court to grant leave, it must be convinced that the proposed issues are serious, new, controversial or of general interest. More precisely, leave will be granted only if there is an apparent weakness in the decision; a gross or manifest error in the appreciation of facts; a contravention to natural justice or insufficient reasons. It is not sufficient for the Court to conclude that the Régie committed an error, it must also be convinced that the issues meet the above mentioned criteria. THE DECISION [ 4 ] The relevant facts are uncontested. [ 5 ] In 2014, Ms.

Jian filed an application to reduce her rent by 45% and this retroactively to June of 2008. [ 6 ] At the time of the hearing in 2016, the monthly rent is of $977. The rented premises is situated in a 50 year old apartment building of approximately 50 apartments. [ 7 ] The reduction in rent is claimed for two reasons :

1. Ms. Jian complains of pipes leaking in the ceiling of one of her rooms. She states that the repairs were not made promptly, thereby justifying a reduction in her rent. 2. She also complains that the cold water flowing to her apartment has, over the years, gone from opaque in colour to dark yellow. Fearing for her health, she does not drink or use the cold water. The hot water running from her taps appears to be normal however. [ 8 ] A report from a city of Montreal inspector, filed at the hearing before the Régie, shows that the water is not dangerous for Ms. Jian’s health.

However: “the yellow color seen at the beginning of the five minutes water run is most probably due to the house piping system”. [ 9 ] In its decision, the Régie grants a lump sum of $450 in reduction of rent to indemnify Ms. Jian for the inconvenience suffered by the delays to make repairs to her ceilings and walls.

However, it dismissed the reduction of rent claimed because of the colour of the water as follows : [46] Tout d’abord, en ce qui a trait à la qualité de l’eau du logement, le Tribunal s’en remet aux rapports émis par la Ville de Montréal le 15 mai 2014 et le 13 juillet 2016 qui, après analyse, confirment que celle-ci répond aux normes du Règlement sur la qualité de l’eau potable en regard des paramètres analysés et qu’elle peut être consommée sans danger. [47] Quant au fait que la locataire doit faire couler l’eau pendant cinq minutes avant de pouvoir la consommer, le Tribunal ne considère pas que cette situation entraîne une perte de jouissance des lieux réelle, sérieuse, significative ou substantielle.

Aucune diminution de loyer ne sera donc accordée à ce titre. THE ISSUES [ 10 ] Ms. Jian proposes the following issues in support of her appeal: 24. Les questions présentées devant la Cour du Québec sont les suivantes : 1) La Régie du logement a-t-elle erré en considérant que le fait de ne pas bénéficier de l’eau potable pendant quelques minutes avant chaque utilisation n’entraîne aucune perte de jouissance des lieux, surtout que l’eau fait

partie des besoins de base de tout locataire; 2) La Régie du logement a-t-elle erré en n’octroyons pas une diminution de loyer à compter du 1 er juin 2011 et jusqu’à ce que l’eau des robinets devienne translucide et potable; 3) La Régie du logement a-t-elle erré en n’accordant que la somme de $450 à

titre de diminution de loyer pour la perte de jouissance causée par les infiltrations d’eau pendant la période entre 1 er juin 2011 et le 30 juin 2014; [Reproduced as drafted] THE Analysis [ 11 ] It is well known that an appeal to the Court of Québec from a decision of the Régie does not constitute a second trial [4] . A party dissatisfied with the factual conclusions of the Régie should not generally obtain leave to appeal since questions of evaluation of facts typically do not constitute questions that “ought to be submitted to the Court of Québec”. [ 12 ] The third issue suggested by Ms.

Jian does not justify leave to appeal. The fact that water infiltrated into the apartment is not contested. Nor is the conclusion that the landlord made repairs soon after receiving a written demand. Ms. Jian’s testimony was evaluated by the Régie in order to conclude that a lump sum of $450 was sufficient to compensate her for the inconvenience suffered. There is nothing in the record to convince the Court that there is any apparent error as to these conclusions.

Leave to appeal will not be granted on this issue. [ 13 ] However, it is the different matter for the other questions. [ 14 ] Beginning at paragraph 40 of its decision, the Régie appears to correctly set out the rules applying to a claim for reduction in rent. At paragraph 44, the decision reads: [44] Dans l'affaire Julie Baril c .

Habitations Van Horne , le Tribunal précise ce qui suit quant au recours en diminution de loyer : « (...) Enfin, la diminution ou la perte doit être réelle, sérieuse, significative et substantielle. » [ 15 ] Then, the Régie, after stating that the tap water is not dangerous to use, simply states that the inconvenience suffered is not «réelle, sérieuse, significative ou substantielle». Consequently, no reduction in rent is granted. [ 16 ] The Commissioner makes no reference to the facts that might allow such a conclusion. No weight appears to have been given to common sense.

The Commissioner did not simply underestimate the damages; she allowed none at all. One can only wonder how it can cause no “real inconvenience” to a tenant who is not able to use her tap water in the way described. The landlord’s obligation to supply its tenants, not only drinkable but usable water, seems to be among the most basic. [ 17 ] Leave to appeal will be granted. The decision contains an apparent weakness in its reasoning. The proposed issue on this point is both serious and of general interest.

A landlord’s obligation to supply this basic service will certainly transcend this litigation and could be applicable to numerous situations. [ 18 ] The issues to be decided will be worded thus:

1. La Régie du logement a-t-elle erré en considérant que le fait de devoir faire couler l’eau du robinet pendant environ cinq minutes à chaque utilisation avant de bénéficier d’une eau translucide n’entraine aucune perte de jouissance des lieux? 2. S’il y a perte de jouissance des lieux dans les circonstances décrites, quelle diminution de loyer aurait dû être accordée à compter du 1 er juin 2011?

FOR THESE REASONS THE COURT: [ 19 ] GRANTS , in part, the motion for leave to appeal; [ 20 ] DECLARES that issues to be decided on the merits are those contained in paragraph [18] of this judgment; [ 21 ] ORDERS Plaintiff to pay the required judicial stamp within 30 days of her receipt of this judgment; [ 22 ] REFERS the file to the assistant coordinator of the Administrative and appeal Division in order that the matter be assigned for case management; [ 23 ] Costs to follow suit. __________________________________ SCOTT HUGHES, J.C.Q.

Me Anamaria Natalia Manole For the Plaintiff Me Elizabeth Ouaknine For the Defendant Date of hearing: December 7, 2016