Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The Tribunal administratif du logement (TAL) mistakenly held that its 2021 order under article 1973 C.c.Q. applied only to the lease in effect at that time.

• The Court clarified that “non-doing” obligations, like refraining from cannabis use or keeping a cat indoors, may validly extend to renewed lease terms.

• The TAL failed to apply the proper analysis under article 1973(2) C.c.Q. after finding the tenant breached the order.

• Instead of assessing the tenant’s justification for non-compliance, TAL wrongly required proof of new prejudice.

• The Court confirmed that a violation of an active order under article 1973(2) triggers a contextual analysis, not a restart of the process.

• The appeal was granted, the prior TAL decision was overturned, and the case was remanded for a proper decision on lease termination.

Facts of the case and judicial findings

Éric Grand Maison and Joseph Elrayes were parties to a residential lease renewed yearly since 2016. In 2021, due to disputes regarding Elrayes’s behavior—namely keeping a cat and using cannabis outside the premises—Grand Maison sought to terminate the lease. The Tribunal administratif du logement (TAL) denied the termination request but issued an order under article 1973 C.c.Q. on July 12, 2021, requiring Elrayes to keep his cat indoors and refrain from smoking cannabis outdoors (2021 QCTAL 17487, "decision Laflamme").

Later, in January 2023, Grand Maison returned to the TAL, alleging that Elrayes had violated this order. While the TAL acknowledged a breach had occurred, it dismissed the request for termination in its February 2023 decision (2023 QCTAL 6149, "decision Marois"). The TAL ruled that the order had only applied to the lease then in force and had expired upon its renewal. Furthermore, it refused to issue a new order or terminate the lease, stating there was no serious prejudice proven by Grand Maison.

Appeal and legal analysis

Grand Maison was granted leave to appeal by Judge Martin Tétreault in June 2023 (2023 QCCQ 3884), and the appeal was heard by Judge Denis Lapierre. The appeal raised two issues: whether the TAL erred in interpreting the duration of the 2021 order, and whether it erred in refusing to terminate the lease after finding a breach.

On the first issue, Judge Lapierre found the TAL committed a legal error by concluding that the order was valid only during the original lease term. He distinguished between "obligations to do" (e.g., paying rent) and "obligations not to do" (e.g., not smoking or not allowing a pet outside). The latter are inherently ongoing and can extend across lease renewals even if the order does not specify a duration. The court noted that such obligations remain enforceable unless explicitly revoked or limited by the tribunal.

On the second issue, the court held that once the TAL had confirmed a breach of the order, it was required under article 1973(2) C.c.Q. to analyze whether the breach justified termination of the lease, taking into account the tenant’s explanations. Instead, the TAL erroneously required the landlord to prove new prejudice, treating the case as though it were a fresh termination application under article 1973(1), not one based on breach of an existing order.

The court clarified that resiliation is not automatic upon breach, but the TAL must assess relevant factors: the gravity of the breach, whether it was voluntary, any misunderstanding of the order, or evidence of landlord tolerance. However, that contextual analysis was never conducted in the February 2023 decision.

Outcome

The Court of Québec granted the appeal and reversed the TAL’s 2023 decision. It declared that the 2021 order (decision Laflamme) remained valid at the time of Elrayes’s breach. The matter was remanded to the TAL to evaluate Elrayes’s explanations in light of the breach and to determine whether the lease should be terminated under article 1973(2) C.c.Q.. Costs were awarded against Joseph Elrayes for all proceedings.

This decision clarifies that orders under article 1973 C.c.Q. imposing non-doing obligations can extend into renewed lease terms, and that once a breach is established, the proper process is to assess whether the breach warrants termination—not to restart the procedure or require new harm.