2018 QCCQ 5187, 2018 QCCQ 5187

Rapatsouleas c.

Gestion jugements Québec inc. 2018 QCCQ 5187 COURT OF QUEBEC (Administrative and Appeal Division) CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL Civil Division No: 500-80-037345-189 DATE: July 18, 2018 ______________________________________________________________________ BEFORE THE HONOURABLE DOMINIQUE GIBBENS, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ panagiota rapatsouleas Plaintiff v. gestion jugements québec inc. -and- antonino valenti -and- stefana rizzuto Defendants ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL FROM A DECISION OF THE RÉGIE DU LOGEMENT (Article 91 of an Act respecting the Régie du logement (CQLR, c.

R-8.1)) ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Plaintiff Panagiota Rapatsouleas (the “ Tenant ”) seeks leave to appeal from a decision of the Régie du logement [1] (the “ Régie ”) dismissing her motion for revocation of a prior decision of the Régie [2] that condemned her to pay arrears of rent of $5,720, resiliated her lease with Antonino Valenti and Stefana Rizzuto (the “ Landlords ”) and ordered her eviction.

FACTUAL CONTEXT [ 2 ] The Tenant and Landlords were previously bound by a residential lease (the “ Lease ”) from June 1, 2014 to May 31, 2015, providing for a monthly rent of $900. [ 3 ] Sometime in 2015, the Landlord filed an application before the Régie seeking the resiliation of the Lease and the Tenant’s eviction for non-payment of rent. [ 4 ] The matter was scheduled for hearing on May 19, 2015. The Tenant did not appear at the hearing, which went ahead in her absence. On May 21, 2015, the Régie granted the Landlords’ application.

In its decision (the “ Original Decision ”), the Régie concluded that the Tenant owed arrears of rent totalling $5,720 (from November 2014 to May 2015). It ordered the Tenant to pay this amount, resiliated the Lease and ordered her eviction. [ 5 ] The Tenant left the leased premises and the Landlords undertook no execution measures in respect to the 2015 Decision.

In March 2018, they assigned their rights pursuant to the Original Decision to Gestion Jugements Québec inc. (“ Gestion ”), [3] who demanded payment from the Tenant by letter dated March 27, 2018. [4] [ 6 ] On April 9, 2018, Gestion served the Tenant with a Notice of Execution of the Original Decision. [5] The same day, the Tenant filed a motion for revocation of the original Decision on the ground that she did not receive notice of the hearing of May 19, 2015 which led to it. [6] [ 7 ] The motion for revocation was dismissed by the Régie on May 24, 2018 (the “ Revocation Decision ”).

The Régie found that the Tenant had not filed her motion for revocation within the applicable legal delay and had offered no valid justification for failing to do so. [ 8 ] It is from this decision that the Tenant seeks leave to appeal. ANALYSIS

a) The Conditions Applicable to an Appeal from a Decision of the Régie [ 9 ] The Act respecting the Régie du logement [7] (the “ Act ”) provides a limited right of appeal from decisions of the Régie. An appeal is possible with leave of the Court only “ when the matter at issue is one which ought to be submitted to the Court of Québec ”. [8] [ 10 ] A matter will generally be considered as one which ought to be submitted to this Court if the issues raised by the applicant are serious, new, controversial or of general interest. [9]

[ 11 ] Leave to appeal may also be granted where the issues raised call into question the higher interests of justice such as, for example, where the applicant demonstrates, prima facie , an apparent weakness in the decision because of a clear and manifest error in the appreciation of the facts or an error of law, or if there was a violation of the rules of natural justice. [10] [ 12 ] The Court has wide discretion to determine whether leave should be granted; it must keep in mind the legislator’s intent that frivolous, dilatory or manifestly ill-founded appeals should not be allowed. [11]

b) The Tenant’s Grounds for Appeal [ 13 ] In support of her application for leave to appeal, the Tenant argues that there was a miscarriage of justice in that the Régie violated her rights: (

a) by dismissing her motion for revocation on the basis of its tardiness, when she had no knowledge of the legal time limit applicable to its filing; and (

b) by refusing to hear her witness and leading her to believe that said witness would be heard at a subsequent hearing. [ 14 ] The Court is of the opinion that leave to appeal should not be granted in the instant case for the following reasons. - Ignorance of the Applicable Time Limit for the Filing of the Motion for Revocation [ 15 ] The Tenant’s first ground of appeal is manifestly ill-founded. [ 16 ] A party against whom a decision of the Régie was rendered may obtain the revocation of the decision if he or she was prevented from producing or supplying evidence by surprise, by fraud or by any other reason considered sufficient. [12] [ 17 ] A motion for revocation of a decision rendered by the Régie must be made in writing within 10 days after the person seeking the revocation becomes aware of the decision. [13] This time limit can be extended, but only where reasonable justification for not respecting the 10-day delay is provided. [14] [ 18 ] In the instant case, the Régie found on the facts that the Tenant had been made aware of the Original Decision at the latest on March 27, 2018 when she received Gestion’s letter of demand by email. [15] Her motion for revocation was filed on April 9, 2018, more than 10 days later, and the Régie did not find justification for its tardiness.

The Régie expressed itself as follows: « [3] La locataire affirme avoir été empêchée de se présenter lors de l’audition [ the hearing of May 19, 2015 on the original application of the Landlord ] puisqu’elle n’a pas reçu de convocation. [4] Elle admet qu’elle devait des loyers impayés, mais conteste ce montant. Elle a été informée du jugement par un appel téléphonique de quelqu’un qui cherchait à exécuter le jugement. Elle affirme sous serment qu’elle a pris connaissance de la décision lorsqu’elle s’est rendue à la Régie du logement le 9 avril 2018.

Or, la preuve démontre que la locataire a été informée du jugement le 27 mars 2017 [ sic ] [16] par l’avocate représentant les intérêts de la

partie intéressée. [5] Quant aux motifs de défense, ceux-ci n’ont pas été étudiés en raison de la tardiveté du recours . » [Emphasis added] [ 19 ] Before this Court, the Tenant’s sole argument regarding the timeliness of her motion for revocation is that she was unaware of the 10-day time limit provided in the Act . This is clearly not proper justification. [ 20 ] Everyone is bound to take cognizance of public statutes. [17] Ignorance of the law is not a proper excuse or justification for not respecting a legal time limit.

It cannot be a valid ground to obtain the extension of a legal time limit. [ 21 ] This first ground of appeal has no reasonable chance of success and leave to appeal on this basis must be denied. - Failure to Hear Proposed Testimony [ 22 ] The Tenant’s second ground of appeal is also manifestly ill-founded. [ 23 ] The Tenant herself admits that the witness whose testimony she intended to lead and that the Régie did not hear was relevant only to the merits of the Landlord’s original application ( i.e. the quantum of the arrears of rent that she claims to owe to the Landlords). [ 24 ] The basis of the Revocation Decision, however, is that the Tenant was unable to justify the late filing of her motion for revocation.

Consequently, the testimony of her proposed witness, which had nothing to do with the timeliness of her motion for revocation, would clearly have made no difference to the outcome of the Revocation Decision. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: DISMISSES the Motion for Leave to Appeal; WITHOUT LEGAL COSTS.

__________________________________ DOMINIQUE GIBBENS, J.C.Q. Date of hearing: June 20, 2018 Panagiota Rapatsouleas For herself Me Valérie Tellier Attorneys for Services Juridiques inc.