Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The landlord sought permission to appeal a Tribunal administratif du logement decision that rejected her application to terminate a lease due to alleged tenant misconduct.

• Central claims included improper exclusion of police reports as evidence and a failure to consider short-term rental intentions.

• The landlord alleged procedural unfairness, arguing that a witness was not allowed to testify in English and that the administrative judge showed bias.

• She also contested the sufficiency of the tribunal’s reasoning and the weight given to the tenant’s version of events.

• The court found no manifest or determinative errors in the tribunal’s factual assessments or evidentiary rulings.

• Permission to appeal was denied due to failure to meet legal thresholds for review under Québec tenancy law.

Facts of the case

Haiyan Wang, the landlord, sought to appeal a decision of the Tribunal administratif du logement (TAL) dated September 9, 2024. The TAL had dismissed her application to terminate the lease of tenant Jean-Guy Brunet. Wang argued that the tenant’s conduct—allegedly involving disturbances, water damage, and misuse of the apartment for potential Airbnb rentals—justified lease cancellation. She was self-represented, and the tenant did not appear at the leave-to-appeal hearing.

Wang contended that her right to a fair hearing had been violated when the TAL judge refused to admit police reports into evidence. She also argued that the tribunal failed to provide a sufficiently reasoned decision, especially regarding evidence about possible short-term rental use and the tenant’s acknowledgment of responsibility for property damage. Another point raised was that the tribunal failed to offer fair and impartial assistance under section 63 of the Loi sur le Tribunal administratif du logement by not allowing a witness to testify in English.

Court’s analysis and outcome

The Court of Québec reviewed the request for permission to appeal and evaluated whether the application met the required legal thresholds: the issue must be serious, novel, of general interest, or raise a matter of principle or justice. It emphasized that simple dissatisfaction with the TAL’s findings or evidentiary choices does not justify appellate review. The court further clarified that to warrant leave to appeal, any alleged factual error must be both manifest (clear on the face of the decision) and determinative (outcome-changing).

On the exclusion of police reports, the court found that without a transcript or recording of the TAL hearing, it could not assess the context or rationale for their exclusion. Therefore, there was no clear error of law or breach of procedural fairness. The court also rejected the claim that the decision lacked adequate reasons, noting that the administrative judge did reference the evidence and explained the credibility findings regarding the tenant’s testimony and the short-term rental issue. It held that these matters fell within the judge’s discretionary assessment of evidence.

Regarding the alleged unfairness in handling the English-speaking witness, the court pointed out that the TAL decision excluded the testimony because the witness appeared to be coached and lacked firsthand knowledge of events—not because of language issues. The court concluded that this did not amount to a breach of impartiality or equitable assistance under the law.

Finally, the court found no manifest or determinative error in the tribunal’s treatment of the water damage issue. The administrative judge had acknowledged the tenant’s role in addressing the problem through a plumber and insurance.

Conclusion

The Court of Québec denied Haiyan Wang’s request for permission to appeal. It found that none of her arguments raised a serious question of law or principle, nor did they meet the standard for appellate intervention. The TAL’s decision was upheld as a valid exercise of its fact-finding and adjudicative authority under Québec’s residential tenancy regime.