2023 QCCQ 3324, 2023 QCCQ 3324

Paldy c. Van Leuuwenkamp 2023 QCCQ 3324 JG2338 COUR OF QUBEC « Small Claims Division » CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF BEAUHARNOIS LOCALITY OF SALABERRY-DE-VALLEYFIELD « Civil Chamber » N° : 760-32-702099-211 DATE : May 24, 2023 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDING: THE HONOURABLE CÉLINE GERVAIS, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ GABRIELLE PALDY Plaintiff v.

TED VAN LEUUWENKAMP Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGEMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Gabrielle Paldy is claiming $10,000 from Ted Van Leuuwenkamp, representing the value of the kitchen cabinets that he took when he left the apartment he was renting. [ 2 ] It was established by a decision of the Administrative Housing Tribunal dated November 2, 2021, that the parties were bound by an oral lease of indeterminate term. In that dispute, Mrs. Paldy claimed certain months of rent due after Mr.

Van Leuuwenkamp's departure, alleging that he had left without notifying her, while Mr. Van Leuuwenkamp maintained that Mrs. Paldy had asked him to leave the premises. [ 3 ] The Tribunal raised the issue of its jurisdiction on its own initiative and convened a management conference to hear the parties' arguments to that effect. Mr. Van Leuuwenkamp had no opinion on the matter. As for Mrs. Paldy, she indicated that a representative of the Administrative Housing Tribunal and a lawyer had indicated to her that her claim should be submitted to the Small Claims Division. [ 4 ]

Section 28 of the Act respecting the Administrative Housing Tribunal [1] provides that the Administrative Housing Tribunal hears in first instance, to the exclusion of any other Tribunal, any application respecting of the lease of a dwelling where the sum claimed or the value of the thing claimed or the interest of the applicant in the object of the application does not exceed the amount of the jurisdiction of the Court of Quebec. [ 5 ] In the same spirit, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure relating to the recovery of small claims does not apply to applications resulting from the lease of a dwelling (article 537 C.C.P.). [ 6 ] In this case, Mrs.

Paldy 's claim exists only because of her contractual relationship with her tenant and originates from the lease that existed between them. The issue is whether the lease included all the renovations made by Mr. Van Leuuwenkamp, as Mrs. Paldy claims, or whether they belong to Mr. Van Leuuwenkamp, who claims to have built them at his expense. [ 7 ] In a similar case, Rochon v. Massicotte [2] , the tenant claimed the loss of personal objects left in the rented dwelling that were not returned to him by the landlord after his departure.

The Court found that a claim for the loss or reclamation of property left or abandoned in a dwelling covered by a lease fell within the jurisdiction of the Administrative Housing Tribunal. The reasoning must be the same when the claim is that of the landlord for property that would have been removed by the tenant. [ 8 ] The Tribunal must therefore decline jurisdiction in this case. Since the parties were able to benefit from the mediation service of the Small Claims Division, the reimbursement of the judicial fees will not be ordered.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE TRIBUNAL: DENIES jurisdiction; THE WHOLE without costs. JG2338 __________________________________ CÉLINE GERVAIS, J.C.Q. NOTICE TO THE PARTIES DIVISION III EXCERPT FROM QUEBEC’S Code of Civil Procedure FILING OF PLEADINGS AND DOCUMENTS 108

(2) Any document or real evidence that is filed in the record as an exhibit must remain in the record until the end of the proceeding, unless all the parties consent to its being removed. Once the proceeding has ended, the parties must retrieve the exhibits they have filed; otherwise, the court clerk may destroy them one year after the date on which the judgment becomes final or the date of the pleading terminating the proceeding. In either case, the chief justice or chief judge, if of the opinion that the exhibits can still be useful, may stay their destruction.