Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Adequacy of notice and opportunity to be heard when the Tribunal administratif du logement (TAL) proceeded on the merits in the tenant’s absence despite her being represented by legal aid counsel.
• Propriety of refusing an adjournment where tenant’s counsel had previously filed an availability form and a written request for a postponement based on unavailability for the scheduled hearing date.
• Impact of treating the landlord’s application as “very urgent” on the balance between procedural efficiency and the tenant’s fundamental right to a fair hearing.
• Extent to which a party’s right to be represented by a particular lawyer may yield to the tribunal’s duty to ensure the diligent progress of a case.
• Appellate court’s power to both grant leave to appeal and decide the merits, including setting aside the TAL decision and ordering a new hearing before a different administrative judge.
• Consequences of the procedural defect: nullification of the initial TAL decision and remittal of the matter to the TAL without any monetary or costs orders at the appellate level.

Background and procedural history

The dispute arises out of a residential tenancy between landlord Claire Roberge and tenant Sylvie Otis in the province of Québec. The landlord applied to the Tribunal administratif du logement (TAL) on 17 April 2025 seeking, among other things, termination of the tenant’s lease. The basis of the application was an alleged failure by the tenant to pay a partial amount of rent totalling 394 dollars, said to represent portions of the rent for July, August and October 2024. The matter therefore squarely concerned landlord–tenant law and the consequences of alleged rent arrears under a residential lease. After the landlord’s application was filed, the tenant obtained legal representation from legal aid. On 15 May 2025, Me Myriam Bouchard, a lawyer with the Centre communautaire juridique du Saguenay–Lac-Saint-Jean (CCJSLSJ), filed a formal act of representation on behalf of the tenant. Attached was the standard scheduling information form, in which counsel set out her unavailabilities for hearing dates. This form would later prove important when the hearing was actually set. On 25 June 2025, the TAL notified the parties of a hearing date set for 4 August 2025. Upon receiving the notice, Me Bouchard promptly submitted a written request for a postponement (remise) on 7 July 2025, explaining that she was unavailable on the scheduled date. The request was made in advance and was grounded in the unavailabilities already disclosed on the scheduling form. Despite this, the administrative judge, Me Jean Gauthier, chose to address the request for a postponement only on the day of the hearing itself, 4 August 2025. On that day, neither the tenant nor her lawyer was present, as the lawyer had requested the adjournment due to unavailability and no one from her office attended to argue the request in person. The administrative judge noted the multiple unavailabilities listed by counsel and considered the landlord’s demand to be “very urgent.” He expressed dissatisfaction that no one from counsel’s office appeared to present the request and underscored that representation by a specific lawyer is not absolute when it would unduly delay the progress of a case. He refused the postponement and proceeded on the merits in the absence of both the tenant and her counsel. On 11 August 2025, the TAL issued a decision adverse to the tenant in file 871238 02 20250417 G. Although the full content of that administrative decision is not reproduced in the Court of Québec judgment, its practical effect was sufficiently negative that the tenant, through her legal aid lawyer, sought leave to appeal to the Court of Québec. Under article 92 of the Loi sur le tribunal administratif du logement, an application for permission to appeal must be filed and served within 30 days of the party becoming aware of the decision. The tenant complied with these requirements, filed the application for permission to appeal, and notified the landlord within the statutory deadline. On 16 September 2025, the Court of Québec, presided over by the Honourable Christian Gendron, J.C.Q., issued an interim order suspending the effects of the TAL decision pending determination of the leave to appeal application. This suspension effectively froze the consequences of the TAL decision while the appellate court considered whether to grant leave and, potentially, whether to intervene on the merits.

Issues before the court

When the matter came before the Court of Québec, the central controversy was not about the factual existence of the alleged rent arrears themselves but about the procedural fairness of the TAL hearing. The key questions were whether the tenant had been deprived of her right to be heard and whether the administrative judge had erred in refusing the postponement and proceeding on the merits in her and her lawyer’s absence. In particular, the Court had to consider the tension between two competing considerations: on the one hand, the need for diligence and efficiency in urgent housing matters, and on the other, the tenant’s fundamental right to a fair hearing, including effective representation by counsel. The judge acknowledged that the right to be represented by a specific lawyer is not absolute; if insisting on one lawyer’s availability would unduly stall proceedings, the tribunal may insist on moving forward. However, the Court also recognised that in this case, the hearing before the TAL was the first time the matter was set down for a full hearing, that counsel had previously identified schedule conflicts, and that the tenant ended up unrepresented and uninformed when the case was heard and decided in her absence. This raised serious questions about respect for the audi alteram partem principle—the right of a party to be heard before a decision affecting their rights is made.

Court’s analysis of procedural fairness and representation

In analysing the situation, the Court of Québec first noted the procedural history of the hearing date and the postponement request. Counsel for the tenant had properly filed a representation notice and a scheduling form that listed her unavailabilities. Upon receiving a hearing date that fell within those unavailable periods, she then submitted a timely written request for a postponement. The administrative judge, however, did not decide the postponement request in advance or invite further submissions; instead, he made the decision on the adjournment at the hearing date itself, after confirming that neither the tenant nor her counsel was present. In doing so, he placed significant emphasis on the “very urgent” nature of the landlord’s demand and on the lack of any representative from counsel’s office personally attending to argue the postponement. The Court of Québec accepted that a tribunal is entitled to manage its docket and that it is correct in principle to say that representation by a specific lawyer is not absolute, especially when a lawyer’s unavailability may unduly delay proceedings. Nonetheless, the Court concluded that the manner in which the postponement was refused, and the hearing was held in the tenant’s absence on the very first setting, was problematic. The tenant was not informed that the hearing would proceed despite the request for postponement, and she had no realistic opportunity to be present or represented. The judge of the Court of Québec found that this situation raised important concerns about the right to be heard. The tenant’s procedural rights, particularly her ability to answer the landlord’s claim for lease termination and alleged arrears, were significantly compromised when the TAL proceeded to a merits decision without her knowledge or participation. These apparent procedural defects formed the foundation for the appellate court’s willingness to intervene.

Resolution at the appellate level

At the hearing of the leave application before the Court of Québec, the judge also acted in a facilitative role, inviting the parties to discuss a practical way forward while they waited for their turn on the docket. Given that granting leave and possibly allowing the appeal would inevitably cause further delays and uncertainty, the Court encouraged the parties to consider agreeing to a procedural reset. Following discussions, the landlord and the tenant informed the Court that they were both willing to return to the TAL so that a new hearing could be held on the merits of the landlord’s application. This agreement aligned with their legitimate expectations and the remedial powers of the Court of Québec when sitting in appeal from the TAL. In light of this joint orientation, and bearing in mind the serious and apparently justified grounds raised in the tenant’s application, the Court opted to dispose of the matter in one comprehensive judgment. It not only granted permission to appeal but also addressed the appeal on its merits in the same ruling.

Outcome and orders

The Court of Québec allowed the tenant’s application for leave to appeal and, at the same time, allowed the appeal itself. It completely set aside the TAL decision of 11 August 2025 in file 871238 02 20250417 G. The Court ordered that the case be returned to the Tribunal administratif du logement for a new hearing on the merits of the landlord’s application, and specified that the rehearing must be held before a different administrative judge, not Me Jean Gauthier. The effect of this order was to restore the situation to what it would have been had the impugned TAL decision never been rendered: the landlord’s application remains to be determined on its merits, and the tenant is entitled to a full and fair hearing with proper representation. As to financial consequences, the Court of Québec expressly ordered that the judgment be rendered “sans frais de justice,” meaning no court costs were awarded to either side at the appellate level. The only monetary amount mentioned in the record is the landlord’s original claim for 394 dollars in alleged rent arrears, which remains unresolved because the merits of that claim will be determined in the fresh TAL hearing. There is therefore no monetary award, damages or costs ordered in favour of any party at this appellate stage. The successful party in the appeal is the tenant, Sylvie Otis, but the total amount ordered in her favour is zero, as the Court granted only procedural relief (setting aside the prior decision and remitting the case) without any monetary award or quantifiable costs.