Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The tenant reported multiple problems in the building and her unit, alleging the landlord failed to deliver the premises in good condition.

• Damages for rent reduction were limited by the Tribunal administratif du logement to the period after the formal notice sent in June 2024.

• The tenant appealed, arguing the tribunal erred by not allowing her witness, Aline Veilleux, to testify.

• The appellate court found the tenant was twice given the opportunity to have her witness heard but did not effectively pursue it.

• The court determined corroboration was unnecessary since the tenant’s testimony was uncontradicted and accepted by the tribunal.

• The appeal was dismissed, upholding the original decision and awarding costs against the tenant.

Facts of the case

Patricia Patsy Gallant is a tenant in a building owned by GWL Realty Advisors Residential Inc. On June 18, 2024, Gallant sent a formal notice to the landlord, identifying various problems in the common areas and in her unit. She stated that the landlord was required to deliver the rented property in good condition and guarantee her full enjoyment of the premises, demanding that the issues be resolved within ten days of receipt of her correspondence.

Proceedings before the Tribunal administratif du logement

In July 2024, Gallant applied to the Tribunal administratif du logement (TAL), requesting a 25% reduction of her rent starting from December 2021. The TAL partially granted her request, deciding that damages could not be awarded for the period before the formal notice was sent. The TAL ordered the landlord to pay Gallant $350 as a reduction in rent for the period from June 2024 to November 2024, as well as costs.

Appeal and legal issues

Gallant sought permission to appeal the TAL’s decision. The appellate court authorized the appeal on two questions: whether the TAL committed a reviewable error by not allowing Gallant to have her witness, Aline Veilleux, testify, and, if so, what damages Gallant would be entitled to based on that testimony. The court examined whether the right to be heard (audi alteram partem) was violated.

Analysis of procedural fairness and evidence

The appellate court found that on the day of the hearing, Gallant’s lawyer was ill and could not attend. Gallant requested that her lawyer participate by videoconference, but the TAL refused the late request and offered to postpone the hearing, which Gallant declined. The TAL judge offered Gallant the choice to begin with her own testimony or that of her witness, and Gallant chose to testify first. She indicated that her witness, Aline Veilleux, was present only to corroborate her statements, as Veilleux was her friend, lived in the building, and had experienced the same issues. After Gallant’s testimony, the judge remarked that if Veilleux’s testimony would simply repeat Gallant’s statements, it was unnecessary, and Gallant agreed. The TAL judge also explained that rent reduction would be considered only from the date of the formal notice in June 2024. The appellate court concluded that the TAL did not commit a reviewable error, as Gallant was given the opportunity to present her witness but did not indicate that Veilleux would provide new evidence.

Outcome and ruling

The appellate court rejected Gallant’s appeal, finding no error by the TAL in handling the witness or in limiting damages to the period after the formal notice. The original decision—ordering the landlord to pay $350 as a rent reduction for June to November 2024 and costs—was upheld. The court awarded costs against Gallant. The total amount ordered in favor of the successful party for costs is not specified.