2015 QCCQ 14110, 2015 QCCQ 14110

Groupe Accueil international inc. c. Bertrand 2015 QCCQ 14110 COURT OF QUEBEC «Administrative and appeal Division» CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL TOWN OF MONTREAL Civil Division No: 500-80-031486-153 DATE: December 15, 2015 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE SCOTT HUGHES, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ GROUPE accueil INTERNATIONAL INC. Plaintiff v.

MICHÈLE BERTRAND Defendant -and- RÉGIE DU LOGEMENT ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ON A MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL FROM THE RÉGIE DU LOGEMENT (Article 91 of an Act respecting the Régie du logement (C.Q.L.R. c. R-8.1)) ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Groupe Accueil International Inc. (“Groupe”) seeks leave to appeal a decision rendered by the Régie du logement (“the Régie”) [1] . This case is one of eight identical motions [2] .

These same reasons will apply to each of the motions presented. context [ 2 ] The decision rendered on July 16, 2015, granted, in part, a claim for reduction of rent presented by the Tenants. [ 3 ] The facts are undisputed. [ 4 ] Groupe offers the services of a doorman in its apartment building. [ 5 ] The Tenants’ apartments are of different sizes and for different monthly rents [3] . As well, there are 51 other tenants who are not party to these proceedings. [ 6 ] Over the past decades, the hours of services offered by the doorman have changed.

Most recently (May 2012), Groupe announced that the doorman’s hours would again be reduced. As of June 1 st , 2012, service on Monday to Friday between 6am and 4pm was cancelled. [ 7 ] Because of this reduction in services, each of the eight Tenants demanded a reduction in rent in the amount of $136.51 per month. An amount of $25 per month reduction was ultimately granted. [ 8 ] Initially, the Tenants also demanded an order that the doorman’s services be reinstated. This claim was abandoned at the hearing before the Régie [4] .

ARTICLE 91 OF AN Act respecting the Régie du logement [ 9 ]

Article 91 of an Act respecting the Régie du logement (“ 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]

[ 10 ] The criteria to be applied in the application of this

article are well known [5] . 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.

Decision [ 11 ] Before the Régie, each party presented its evidence according to a distinct theory. The Tenants’ evidence aimed at proving the savings earned by Groupe through the reduction of services: [12] Ainsi, ils réclament chacun une somme de 136,51 $ par mois à

titre de diminution de loyer à compter du 1 er juin 2012. [13] Leur calcul est basé sur des données du locateur en fixation de loyer en 2010 et en 2013 soit : Dépenses des portiers en 2010 :173 591.65 $ Moins Dépenses des portiers en 2013 : 76 940.20 $ 96 651.45 $ divisé par 59 logements= 1638.16 $ 1638.16 divisé par 12 mois= 136.51 $ par mois. [ 12 ] Groupe, on the other hand took the approach of applying the rules contained in the “ Règlement sur les critères de fixation de loyer , (“the Règlement”) [6] . [14] En défense, la mandataire du locateur évalue la diminution du service des portiers à 0,19 $ par mois pour l’année 2012 $, 0,23 $ par mois pour l’année 2013, 0,5 $ par mois pour l’année 2014 en regard des documents utilisés par le locateur en fixation de loyer. [ 13 ] The Régie concluded that the reduction in services did in fact cause a loss of rental value to the Tenants (para. 25 of the decision). [ 14 ] However, the Régie also rejected both proposed methods of evaluating the appropriate reduction in rent.

The adjudicator stated that she was required to evaluate the “la perte réelle de valeur locative”.

The formula she adopted was: En résumé : Dépense Portiers avant le 1 er juin 2012 96 386 $ Moins Dépense Portiers après le 1 er juin 20 12 78 418.64 $ = 17967.36 $ 17967.36 $ divisé par 12 mois= 1497.28 $ 1497.28 $ par mois divisé par 59 locataires= 25 $ par moi [Reproduced as drafted] proposed Issues [ 15 ] Groupe argues that the method of evaluation used by the Régie is: “déraisonnable et qu’il en résulte un déni de justice“ (para. 24 of the motion ). [ 16 ] In Groupe’s view, it is inconceivable that the Tenants should benefit from the prorated reduction of Groupe’s expenses, when the same expenses would have allowed Groupe only a few cents increase in rent according to the regulation. [ 17 ] Such an insignificant variation, according to Groupe should have led the Régie to dismiss the Tenants’ application. [ 18 ] Groupe suggests that the following questions be discussed on appeal: 29.

Les questions soulevées par cette affaire sont donc celles-ci : 1. Est-ce que le calcul effectué par la Régie du logement pour établir à 25 $ la diminution de loyer est raisonnable? 2. Est-ce que la Régie du logement aurait dû retenir que la diminution du service de portier était négligeable? 3. Est-ce que la Régie du logement aurait dû rejeter la demande des défenderesses? Analysis [ 19 ] Although simple questions of evaluation of damages might often not justify an appeal before the Court of Québec, this case on the does not fall in that category.

[ 20 ] The Régie’s decision contains an apparent weakness. The adjudicator first states that she agrees with the author Lamy when he writes [7] : [28] À ce titre, le tribunal fait sienne l’opinion de l’auteur Denis Lamy [1] qui indique : « Lorsqu’un service est supprimé la règle de droit prévoit que dans un tel cas, il faut diminuer le loyer d’un montant correspondant à la perte réelle de la valeur locative.

Pour établir la diminution de loyer à accorder on doit établir le cout précis de ce service et déterminer ensuite son importance monétaire eue égard à l’ensemble des autres services et commodités fournis par locateur . » [Emphasis added] [Reference omitted] [ 21 ] As this author states, the loss of rental value must take into account the following: “il faut diminuer le loyer d’un montant correspondant à la perte réelle de la valeur locative“; “on doit établir le coût précis de ce service“; “déterminer ensuite son importance monétaire eu égard à l’ensemble des autres services“. [ 22 ] The adjudicator does not appear who have delved into all of these different aspects in any detail, nor does she gives specific reasons as to each of these questions. [ 23 ] As well, the decision does not discuss the relation between the loss of rental value and the specific rent paid by each of the Tenants.

As stated above, the rent paid by each of the Tenants varies by a wide margin. Should the adjudicator not have discussed the relative value of a service in relation with the rent paid? Should she have taken into account the value of the service according to the Règlement ? [ 24 ] Absent more detailed reasoning into all of these questions, the Régie’s decision falls short of convincing an objective reader. At this stage, the Court need not and must not discuss the reasonable character of the decision.

It suffices that Groupe’s arguments are serious and defensible. [ 25 ] The issues present here do not appear to have been discussed by the Court of Québec in the past. They are new. They are also of general interest since a similar situation is bound to arise in the future. [ 26 ] Leave to appeal will be granted. The issues as proposed by Groupe appear appropriate, except for the following correction, made to avoid prejudging the applicable norm in this appeal: 1. Est-ce que le calcul effectué par la Régie du logement pour établir à 25 $ la diminution de loyer est approprié ? 2.

Est-ce que la Régie du logement aurait dû retenir que la diminution du service de portier était négligeable? 3. Est-ce que la Régie du logement aurait dû rejeter la demande des défenderesses? FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT : GRANTS the motion for leave to appeal; Declares that the issues to be discussed on appeal are those contained in paragraph [26] of this judgment; WITHOUT COSTS. __________________________________ SCOTT HUGHES, J.C.Q. Me Marc Poirier For the Plaintiff Michèle Bertrand Not represented Date of hearing: October 7, 2015