Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The main issue was whether landlords must prove good faith when repossessing a dwelling under Article 1963 CCQ.

• The lower tribunal wrongly imposed an added burden of proof on the landlords to demonstrate their good faith, not required by law.

• The evidence did not support the tribunal’s doubts regarding the landlords’ intent to house their son.

• The presumption of good faith under Article 2805 CCQ was overlooked by the lower tribunal.

• The appeal court clarified that repossession only requires proving the stated purpose and that it’s not a pretext.

• The appeal was allowed, the original decision reversed, and repossession authorized with compensation for the tenant’s relocation.

Facts of the case

Rachid Meziani and Saleha Addad, residents of Kuwait, co-owned a Montreal triplex with their son, Ryan Meziani, from 2018. In 2023, Ryan transferred his share to his parents, making them sole owners. They then issued a notice to repossess the upper apartment, which was occupied by long-term tenant Sylvie Bertrand since 1998, intending to house Ryan there. Bertrand did not respond to the notice, prompting the landlords to seek repossession before the Tribunal administratif du logement.

The tribunal denied the application, raising suspicions that the repossession was a pretext, possibly to benefit financially from the low rent Bertrand paid ($770/month), especially compared to other units in the building.

Legal analysis and outcome

The Court of Québec found the lower tribunal erred in law by requiring the landlords to demonstrate good faith, a condition not explicitly required by Article 1963 of the Civil Code of Québec. The court held that:

• Article 1963 requires landlords to prove only two things: that they genuinely intend to repossess the dwelling for the stated purpose, and that it is not a pretext for another goal.

• The obligation to act in good faith exists under Article 1375 CCQ and is presumed under Article 2805 CCQ unless the law explicitly requires proof otherwise.

• Article 1968 CCQ, as amended, now specifically includes a requirement to prove good faith in damage claims, indicating that such a requirement is not implied in Article 1963.

The tribunal’s decision relied heavily on speculative reasoning and concerns not substantiated by the evidence. For example, it questioned the practicality of Ryan living alone in a 5½-room apartment, or the economic logic of giving up rental income, but failed to recognize that the law doesn’t require landlords to justify such lifestyle choices.

Judgment

The Court of Québec allowed the appeal, reversed the tribunal’s decision, and granted repossession effective July 1, 2025. It ordered Bertrand to vacate by June 30, 2025, with the landlords required to pay $2,129.71 in relocation compensation. The court emphasized that landlords have a right to freely use their property within legal limits and that courts should not impose additional requirements beyond those set by law. No legal costs were awarded against Bertrand due to the jurisprudential uncertainty that had surrounded the case.