2019 QCCQ 4131, 2019 QCCQ 4131

Ming c. Cromwell 2019 QCCQ 4131 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: June 11, 2019 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDED BY THE HONOURABLE DAVID L. CAMERON, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ JIAN MING Appelant v. CROMWELL and MOONCREST INVESTISSEMENT INC.

Respondents and RÉGIE DU LOGEMENT Mise en cause ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Court is seized of an appeal from a decision of the Régie du logement [1] , (“ the Régie ”) which allowed, in part, the Appellant’s application for a reduction of rent (“ the Decision [2] ”). [ 2 ] In the case before the Régie, the Appellant claimed a reduction of rent and an order for specific performance relating to two types of allegations: firstly those relating to the quality of the water, and secondly the failure of the lessor to make various repairs to the ceiling, to the walls and to the floor of the dwelling. [ 3 ] The Decision [3] allowed a reduction of rent in a lump sum of $450.00 for loss of enjoyment relating to the walls and ceiling prior to repairs that were carried out by the lessor after the putting in default. [ 4 ] The Decision dismissed the other aspects of the application. [ 5 ] A judge of the Court authorised the Appeal on the issues pertaining to the quality of the water, expressed in terms of the following two questions: [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? [4] [ 6 ] These issues mirror the questions as submitted by the Appellant in the motion for leave: 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’octroyant 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 le 1 er juin 2011 et le 30 juin 2014 [5] . [ 7 ] The consideration about the effect of the characteristics of the water is contained in the following paragraph of the Decision: [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 [6] .

[ 8 ] Thus, the situation concerning the quality of the water was considered by the Commissioner as causing a loss of enjoyment of a degree that was not sufficient to justify a reduction of rent. [ 9 ] The case was submitted to case management and the parties, through their attorneys, agreed, in setting the date for the hearing, that the case would proceed on the file as constituted, i.e. without the court hearing evidence.

Standard of review [ 10 ] The Court considers that, since there is no trial de novo , but rather an appeal on the file as constituted before the Régie, the issue is whether the Commissioner erred in rendering decisions of fact or of law, or mixed questions, that are not reasonable.

This was the way the case was argued by the Appellant’s attorney, who submitted that the decision was “completely incorrect and absolutely unreasonable”. [ 11 ] She makes the point that the quality of the water, which requires the tenant to run the tap for five minutes before each use before the water will become clear, is obviously a serious and significant prejudice justifying a reduction of rent. [ 12 ] The Respondent argues that the decision is justified in light of the evidence as adduced in the file, that the quality of the water, in compliance with the City of Montreal standards, is sufficient and that the decision of the Commissioner as to the effect on the Appellant’s enjoyment of the need to run the tap prior to using the water is a reasonable one.

Analysis [ 13 ] The issue of the tap water and the conclusions of the decision in regard to this issue have to be understood in the context of the case. The Appellant presented her application at the Régie on the allegation that the water is a rusty yellow colour and that it had been affecting the heath of the lessee for several years. [ 14 ] The letter of demand dated May 15, 2014 stated: […] I list the problems that the apartment have had 1), Water problem has been years, The first time I bring to your attention was about 5, 6 years ago. I also talked with Connie after.

Last year when you and Aural visited the apartment, I mentioned it again. The water flows out from the tube of my kitchen is yellow or rusted color. As it has affected my health, I have to avoid to use the water from the kitchen faucet [7] . [exact citation] [ 15 ] The Commissioner sums up the testimony of the Appellant in the following terms: [7] La locataire témoigne qu’au cours de l’année 2008, elle a constaté que l’eau froide qui sortait de son robinet d’eau froide n’était pas translucide, mais revêtait une couleur jaune.

Graduellement, le problème s’est aggravé de sorte qu’elle est maintenant d’un jaune foncé et inquiétant. De crainte pour sa santé, elle ne boit plus l’eau qui émane de ses robinets ni ne l’utilise pour laver sa vaisselle. Pour ses besoins quotidiens, elle n’utilise que l’eau chaude qui lui apparaît normale. [8] Dès 2008, elle a avisé le locateur du problème.

Toutefois, ce dernier n’a pas semblé préoccupé par la situation et n’a pas daigné intervenir. [9] Le 17 août 2010, dans le cadre d’une contestation d’un avis d’augmentation de loyer, appert-il, elle transmet une lettre au locateur l’informant de la couleur douteuse de l’eau et de ses inquiétudes quant à sa potabilité, elle l’informe aussi que la peinture de son plafond s’écaille. [10] Au cours de l’année 2013, le locateur procède à des réparations au plafond du logement, réparations qui s’avèrent vaines puisque le problème réapparaît.

Aucune réparation n’est toutefois effectuée au système de plomberie. [11] Le 15 mai 2014, l’état du logement et la qualité d’eau se dégradant, elle transmet au locateur la mise en demeure suivante : « Hello Mr. Magliocca : I am writing to you regarding the request about and the condition of my apartment. I Iist the problems that the apartment have had 1), Water problem has been years, The first time I bring to your attention was about 5, 6 years ago. I also talked with Connie after. Last year when you and Aural visited the apartment, I mentioned it again.

The water flows out from the tube of my kitchen is yellow or rusted color. As it has affected my health, I have to avoid to use the water from the kitchen faucet. 2) The wall, the painting is peel off (not only peel off, also has brown liquid coming out from the wall). Please see the photo attached.

3) The floor is worn off after nine years living here, it needs to repaired, replenished as well. 4) The apartment is dark, for nine years, the wall has not re-painted. According the current condition of the apartment where I am living, it is not only not worth of 935 $, I think it is not even worth of 600 $ per month.

I request the above mentioned will be repaired and replenished by the end of the month, as I have requested it since a long time. » […] [14] Le locateur n’a pas non plus apporté les correctifs nécessaires au système de plomberie, de sorte que l’eau qui coule de son robinet l’eau froide dans sa cuisine, est jaune. Elle doit conséquemment la faire couler environ 5 minutes afin que celle-ci devienne translucide. [15] À son avis, l’eau froide qui coule de ses robinets n’est pas potable et n’est pas propice à la consommation.

Elle précise que depuis qu’elle a arrêté de boire l’eau froide dispensée par le robinet de sa cuisine, elle n’est plus sujette à des diarrhées, situation qu’elle a expérimentée auparavant. [16] À l’aide de photographies et d’une vidéo, elle montre au tribunal la couleur de l’eau immédiatement après avoir actionné le robinet d’eau froide de son logement.

Le Tribunal constate qu’en effet, l’eau prélevée est de couleur jaune. […] [18] La locataire témoigne qu’au début du mois de mars 2016, elle a porté plainte auprès de la Ville de Montréal sur la qualité de l’eau potable. [19] Le 4 mars 2016, un représentant de la ville de Montréal a fait couler l’eau froide pendant cinq minutes et a prélevé un échantillon de celle-ci. [20] Le 29 mars 2016, la Ville de Montréal a émis un rapport indiquant que les résultats des analyses de l’échantillonnage de l’eau prélevée dans la cuisine démontraient que celle-ci répondait aux normes du Règlement sur la qualité de l’eau potable et pouvait être consommée sans danger. [21] Insatisfaite de ce rapport, la locataire s’est à nouveau adressée à la Ville de Montréal qui, le 13 juillet 2016, a émis le rapport suivant : « Mrs Jian, At your request, we took a water sample in the kitchen, at the address mentioned above.

Note that our procedure is to let the water run for 5 minutes before to take the sample. This is to assure to sample the fresh water coming from the city pipeline to your house. Analysis results show that the water meets the requirements of Quebec's drinking water regulation for the parameters tested and may be consumed without risk. In laboratory we did smell cold water and it smell chlorine. Free and total chlorine in water was 0,91 and 1,09 mg/L. That level of chlorine is normal in your district. We also tested for iron and manganese, source of discolouration when oxidized.

Iron level was 0,04 mg/L and manganese level was 0,00090 mg/L. Iron and manganese are not regulated in Quebec. Health Canada recommend a concentration Iess than 0,3 mg/L for iron and less than 0,050 mg/L for manganese. Those limits are based only for aesthetical standards.

The yellow color seen at the beginning of the 5 minutes water run is most probably due to the house piping system. » […] [23] La locataire trouve anormal de devoir attendre cinq minutes avant d’obtenir une eau translucide et soutient que cette situation non seulement l’inquiète, mais également trouble sa jouissance des lieux de manière significative [8] . [ 16 ] The decision states the lessor’s evidence as follows: [27] En ce qui a trait à l’eau froide, il admet qu’elle puisse revêtir une couleur jaune immédiatement après que le robinet ait été actionné.

Toutefois, après quelques minutes l’eau devient translucide. Ce phénomène est causé par l’oxydation des tuyaux qui sont d’origine et en fonte. Le locateur prévoit éventuellement remplacer ces tuyaux. Toutefois, pour l’heure, l’eau froide du logement est potable et conforme aux exigences municipales et normes en vigueur. [28] Monsieur Magliocca ajoute que la locataire n’a pas démontré que l’eau froide de son logement ne pouvait être consommée et présenter quelque risque pour sa santé.

Elle n’a pas non plus démontré avoir subi quelques malaises après avoir consommé l’eau froide de son logement, ni établi de lien de causalité, entre ces problèmes gastro-intestinaux, s’il en fut, et l’eau du logement. [29] Finalement, il doute qu’une attente de quelques minutes, le temps que l’eau devienne translucide, puisse causer une perte de jouissance significative des lieux à la locataire [9] . [ 17 ] After stating the legal principles applicable, the Commissioner states her conclusions 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 [10] . [ 18 ] Having accepted the reports of the city inspector as probative, the Commissioner could not give very much weight to the Appellant’s conviction that the cold water in the apartment was unusable and that it had affected her health. [ 19 ] Thus the issue became whether the necessity of running the water before using it constituted a loss or reduction of the enjoyment of the dwelling that was “réelle, sérieuse, significative et substantielle”. [ 20 ] The present appeal is not an exercise of obtaining a second opinion as to the appreciation of the evidence in light of this criterion.

Rather, the duty of the appeal court is to determine whether the decision can be supported by the evidence, whether it is a decision that « falls within a range of possible, acceptable outcomes which are defensible in respect of the facts and law » [11] . [ 21 ] My colleague allowed the motion for leave to appeal on the apparent weakness of the decision, which he summed up as follows: [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 [12] . [ 22 ] On a closer review of the decision and after hearing full argument on both sides, the Court arrives at a different result. [ 23 ] The Appellant argued that the factual finding of the decision is that it is necessary to run the water for at least five minutes each time the water is used. [ 24 ] This would mean that, on a given day, the Appellant may have to run the water for at least five minutes literally dozens of times.

With respect, the decision does not come to that conclusion. [ 25 ] The interval of five minutes was used as part of the city’s methodology to test the water coming from the city’s supply. It was a standard interval used, presumably to clear out any standing water first. The idea that it would be necessary to do so repeatedly throughout the day, each time the water was to be used is not present in the evidence, and does not appeal to common sense. [ 26 ] The report stated that “the yellow colour seen at the beginning of the 5 minutes water run is most probably due to the house piping system”.

The report does not suggest that the yellow color persistent for any particular length of time. [ 27 ] The admission of the lessor was somewhat qualified: [27] En ce qui a trait à l’eau froide, il admet qu’elle puisse revêtir une couleur jaune immédiatement après que le robinet ait été actionné. Toutefois, après quelques minutes l’eau devient translucide. Ce phénomène est causé par l’oxydation des tuyaux qui sont d’origine et en fonte. Le locateur prévoit éventuellement remplacer ces tuyaux.

Toutefois, pour l’heure, l’eau froide du logement est potable et conforme aux exigences municipales et normes en vigueur [13] . [ 28 ] The Appellant made the dramatic evidence of the colour of the water, but the evidence is silent as to how long the water had been left without being run before the sample was taken. [ 29 ] Coupled with her affirmation that she had stopped using the water for some time, this lack of detail left open the question whether there was a serious problem, when the water is used on a continuous basis, as opposed to seldom or never. [ 30 ] Fundamentally, the Appellant, making the allegation of a loss of enjoyment of the dwelling, had the burden of proving that that loss of enjoyment was real, serious, significant, and substantial.

Neither party was able to demonstrate, from the evidence, that the necessity of running the water for a few minutes, or even for five minutes, before using it was a necessity occurring weekly, daily, hourly, or every time the water was used, as the appellant stated in her argument. [ 31 ] In the lack of that type of quantitative and qualitative evidence, the “fact” that the water was run for five minutes before the city inspector took a sample that complied with the city’s standards is equally consistent with a finding that running the water first is a very minor inconvenience as it is with a finding that it was a major inconvenience. [ 32 ] The role and responsibility of the Commissioner was to hear evidence and decide whether the Appellant had fulfilled her burden of proving that it was a major inconvenience.

Her decision, consistent with the notion that that burden was not met is not demonstrably irrational or unsupported in the evidence: [47] Reasonableness is a deferential standard animated by the principle that underlies the development of the two previous standards of reasonableness: certain questions that come before administrative tribunals do not lend themselves to one specific, particular result. Instead, they may give rise to a number of possible, reasonable conclusions. Tribunals have a margin of appreciation within the range of acceptable and rational solutions.

A court conducting a review for reasonableness inquires into the qualities that make a decision reasonable, referring both to the process of articulating the reasons and to outcomes. In judicial review, reasonableness is concerned mostly with the existence of justification, transparency and intelligibility within the decision-making process. But it is also concerned with whether the decision falls within a range of possible, acceptable outcomes which are defensible in respect of the facts and law [14] .

[ 33 ] The jurisprudence [15] presented by the Appelant, pertaining to well water, was not particularly germane to the case.

In those cases the water was, according to technical analyses, of an unacceptable quality or at the very least there was a reason to fear that the water was not potable as it was consistently of an unactable appearance and odour. [ 34 ] The case is more in the line of cases [16] that concern the acceptability of a city’s supply. [ 35 ] In the Court’s view the Commissioner’s opinion, when viewed in light of the ambiguous proof offered by the Plaintiff, is a possible and acceptable outcome, and the Court will not intervene. [ 36 ] The Court is of the view however that this is a case where costs should not be awarded.

BY THESE REASONS, THE COURT: DISMISSES the appeal; WITHOUT COSTS. __________________________________ David L. Cameron, J.C.Q. Me Anamaria Natalia Manole For the Appelant Me Elizabeth Ouaknine For the Respondent Date of hearing: December 14, 2018