r v. ERIC MARTINEAU, 2018 QCCQ 1828

Gulden c. Martineau 2018 QCCQ 1828 COURT OF QUÉBEC (Administrative and Appeal Division) CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF MONTRÉAL Civil Division NO: 500-80-036293-174 DATE: MARCH 26, 2018 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDED BY THE HONOURABLE JULIE VEILLEUX, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ NORMAN GULDEN Petitioner v.

ERIC MARTINEAU and HOSEE JEUDI and OFFICE MUNICIPALE D’HABITATION DE MONTRÉAL Respondents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE RÉGIE DU LOGEMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Petitioner requests the permission to appeal the decision rendered by the Régie du logement on November 9, 2017 (the decision) dismissing his application to suspend the proceedings, presented in accordance with

section 58 of the Act respecting the Régie du logement ( LRL ) [1] .

CONTEXT [ 2 ] Respondent, Office Municipale d’habitation de Montréal (OMHM), filed on April 14, 2016 a claim against Petitioner requesting the resiliation of his lease, his eviction and the provisional execution of the decision on the ground that Petitioner does not respect “his contractual obligations, including the obligation to use the property with prudence and diligence, to give access to his dwelling to the landlord and to act in such a way as not to disturb the normal enjoyment of the other lessees” [2] (the claim). [ 3 ] OMHM alleged serious damages resulting from complaints of other tenants about Petitioner’s aggressive and intimidating behavior together with an “inappropriate behavior and assault on a young woman who was visiting another tenant of the building” [3] on or about February 17, 2016. [ 4 ] The claim was amended on March 31, 2017 and rather referred to an allegation from a young woman that Petitioner had had an inappropriate behavior and had assaulted her. [ 5 ] On April 19 2017, Petitioner filed proceedings before the Superior Court (500-17-098369-179) against Respondents for damages in the amount of $ 99,999 for false and defamatory allegations contained in the claim.

[ 6 ] On October 10, 2017, Petitioner filed before the Régie du logement an application to suspend proceedings in accordance with

section 58 of the LRL which reads as follows: 58. Where the Superior Court and the board are seized of actions and applications having the same juridical basis or raising the same questions of law and fact, the board must, if one of the parties so requests and no serious prejudice can result to the adverse party, suspend the hearing of the application before it until the judgment in the case before the Superior Court has become definitive. [ 7 ] Said Application was dismissed : La requête est rejetée pour les motifs exprimés oralement à l’audience.

Essentiellement, à la lecture de la demande du locateur déposée le 14 avril 2016, amendée le 31 mars 2017 et du dossier 500-17-098369-179 de la Cour supérieure, le Tribunal conclut que les demandes n’ont pas le même fondement juridique, qu’elles ne soulèvent pas les mêmes points de droit et (le Tribunal note que ce « et » est conjonctif, nécessairement) de fait (partiellement eu égard aux allégués visés au sein de la demande du locateur à la Régie du logement), et qu’au surplus, la suspension requise engendrerait vraisemblablement (2803 C.c.Q. ) un préjudice sérieux pour la

partie locatrice qui ne pourrait procéder sur la demande originale (amendé

e) déposée à la Régie du logement (où un tel préjudice est allégué, parag. 13)

article 1863 C.c.Q. En conséquence, les éléments et prescriptions énoncés à l’

article 58 LRL n’étant pas rencontrés, la requête doit être rejetée. Le Tribunal a pris connaissance des causes suivantes déposées à l’appui des prétentions respectives des parties, à savoir : Me Selig : Fergus c. M.S. , 2014 QCCS 2071 ; Me Martineau : Larose c. Développement immobilier J.G.R. enr. , 27-120305-001G; 27-120305-001G. ANALYSIS [ 8 ] According to Petitioner, the matter at issue is one which ought to be submitted to the Court du Québec according to

Section 91 of the LRL . In addition, he contends that his attorney was not given the opportunity to rebut before the decision was rendered. [ 9 ]

Section 91 of the LRL reads as follows : 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. (…) [ 10 ] In order to decide whether the issue is one which ought to be submitted to the Court of Québec, the Court must decide if the question raised is serious, new, of general interest or refers to a controversy in the actual jurisprudence [4] . [ 11 ] Additional criteria may also be considered in deciding such a Motion [5] : - Apparent weakness in the decision; - Error in the appreciation and administration of proof; - Breach of natural justice principles; - Refusal of the Régie du logement to exercise his jurisdiction. [ 12 ] Finally, the Court adds that the Motion for leave to Appeal is not the occasion of a second chance for Petitioner to present again the same arguments submitted before the Régie du logement [6] . [ 13 ] Petitioner has not convinced the Court that the issue raised in his Motion for leave to appeal ought to be submitted to the Court of Québec. [ 14 ] Although it is possible, in some cases, to grant the permission to appeal an interlocutory decision [7] , the issue raised by Petitioner relates to no controversy whatsoever in the jurisprudence, is not of general interest considering that its impact is most private. [ 15 ] His claim filed by OMHM against Petitioner requesting the resiliation of the lease and eviction has a different judicial basis than the proceedings for damages instituted by Petitioner before the Superior Court. [ 16 ] In the first matter, the Régie du logement will decide of OMHM’s right to have the lease resiliated considering Petitioner’s behavior, namely with other tenants. [ 17 ] In the Superior Court matter, it is rather Me Eric Martineau, Mr.

Hosee Jeudi and the OMHM’s civil liability that will be examined and its impact, if any, on Petitioner’s reputation. [ 18 ] The Court finds no possibility of potential contradictory judgments as the Régie du logement and the Superior Court will decide different issues [8] . In addition, although Petitioner and OMHM are involved in both matters, the connection between the instances is not as clear as the one referred to by Mrs.

Justice Petras in the Fergus [9] case submitted by Petitioner. [ 19 ] In view of the above and considering that there is no apparent weakness [10] in the decision, the Court finds that the arguments submitted by Petitioner will most likely end in failure.

[ 20 ] Finally, considering the fact that the Court was not given the transcripts of the hearing before the Régie du logement regarding Petitioner’s argument that his attorney was not given the possibility to rebut before the decision was rendered, the Court must dismiss Petitioner’s argument in that respect. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: DISMISSES the Motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Régie du logement. ____________________________ JULIE VEILLEUX, J.C.Q. Me. Gordon M. Selig Counsel for the Petitioner Me. Marie-Pier Durand OFFICE MUNICIPAL D’HABITATION DE MONTRÉAL Counsel for the Respondents Hearing date: March 7, 2018