Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Marc Pettigrew, a tenant at Résidences Soleil Manoir Sainte-Julie, challenged three aspects of his lease before the Tribunal administratif du logement (TAL), all of which the TAL rejected.
• Central to the appeal is whether the TAL erred in declining jurisdiction over questions concerning the landlord's right to impose personal services as a condition of the lease and the tenant's right to terminate such services mid-lease.
• Disputed is whether the mandatory inclusion of housekeeping and linen-washing services in the lease — services the tenant no longer wished to receive — violated the Regulation on the certification of private seniors' residences effective December 15, 2022, and article 1900 of the Civil Code of Québec.
• At issue is also whether Soleil's use of a non-compliant form to describe personal services in the lease annexe caused the tenant prejudice, and whether strict compliance with the prescribed form constitutes undue formalism.
• Contested is the validity of the monthly $75 charge imposed for a second occupant (the tenant's spouse), which the tenant argued was prohibited under article 1900 of the Civil Code of Québec.
• All four questions raised on appeal were found to be novel, serious, and of broader public interest affecting seniors living in private residences.

Facts of the case

Marc Pettigrew and 6985467 Canada inc., operating as Résidences Soleil Manoir Sainte-Julie ("Soleil"), entered into a lease on March 3, 2022, for a unit in a private seniors' residence (résidence privée pour aînés or RPA) within the meaning of the Act respecting the governance of the health and social services system. The lease initially ran from July 1, 2022 to June 30, 2023 and was renewed annually thereafter. It covered not only occupancy of the unit but also various personal services described in annexes to the lease. In May 2023, Pettigrew filed proceedings before the TAL challenging three distinct aspects of his lease and his relationship with Soleil. He sought recognition of his right to opt out of mandatory housekeeping and linen-washing services, an order requiring Soleil to issue a properly completed statutory services form, and a declaration that the monthly $75 charge imposed because his spouse shared the unit was null and void.

Contractual clauses and regulatory provisions at issue

The lease and its service schedule classified housekeeping (twice monthly) and linen-washing (once weekly) as mandatory services, though their cost was listed under the optional "care and services" portion of the lease rather than in the base rent. Pettigrew formally notified Soleil in a letter dated December 12, 2022 — five months into his tenancy — that he wished to discontinue these services, invoking the Regulation on the certification of private seniors' residences, which came into force on December 15, 2022. Article 13.2 of that Regulation provides that service selection, other than services whose cost is obligatorily included in the rent, must be left entirely to the tenant's discretion, and that the operator cannot require the tenant to retain any service it offers as a condition of concluding the lease. Pettigrew also relied on article 1900 of the Civil Code of Québec, which renders ineffective any clause limiting the tenant's right to purchase goods or obtain services from persons of their own choosing, and on article 2125, which permits a client to unilaterally terminate a service contract at any time, even after performance has begun. Regarding the form issue, Pettigrew invoked article 1895.1 of the Civil Code of Québec, article 2 of the Regulation on mandatory lease forms, and article 13.4 of the Regulation on the certification of private seniors' residences, all of which together require the landlord to use the prescribed Annex 6 form to itemize the cost of each personal service. On the second-occupant charge, the service schedule expressly noted that an additional $75 per month was added to the rent due to the presence of a second occupant, a term reproduced at each lease renewal.

Reasoning and analysis

The TAL rejected all three of Pettigrew's claims. On jurisdiction, it held that its authority was confined to assessing the quality of contractual performance — for instance, awarding a rent reduction if services were poorly rendered — and did not extend to determining whether the landlord could impose personal services as a mandatory lease condition or whether the tenant could terminate such services. It reasoned that the special statutory regime governing RPAs, which ties the residence's certification category to its service offerings, took precedence over general provisions, and referred such questions to the Regional Complaints Commissioner and ultimately the Protecteur des usagers. On the form issue, the TAL acknowledged that the correct prescribed form had not been used but found that the tenant had suffered no prejudice, and that insisting on the exact statutory form would constitute undue formalism. On the $75 charge, it found that the special RPA regime overrode article 1900 of the Civil Code of Québec, reasoning that the surcharge covered the additional operational costs generated by a second person using shared services and amenities, rather than simply reflecting increased occupancy of a physical space.

The Cour du Québec identified significant problems with each of these conclusions. On jurisdiction, the court noted that the TAL's decision cited no authority for its finding that the Complaints Commissioner and the Protecteur des usagers hold exclusive jurisdiction over the contested questions — a finding that was all the more problematic because those bodies lack any binding or coercive power, as their investigations result only in non-binding recommendations. The court raised the concern that the TAL's approach could create a jurisdictional vacuum amounting to a denial of justice, leaving tenants with no effective forum to resolve their disputes. On the service imposition question, the court observed that neither the impact of the December 15, 2022 regulatory amendment on pre-existing leases nor the interaction between that Regulation and the Civil Code provisions invoked by Pettigrew had ever been addressed by the Cour du Québec. On the form question, the court found it was not self-evident that jurisprudence on repossession or major-works notices — the authorities produced by Soleil — was comparable to the requirements governing lease forms and their annexes. On the occupant surcharge, the court noted that the question of whether the RPA regime displaces article 1900 of the Civil Code of Québec in this specific context was likewise novel, and observed that the TAL itself appeared to acknowledge the tension by suggesting that a legislative amendment might eventually be needed.

Ruling and overall outcome

The Cour du Québec, presided over by the Honourable Daniel Lévesque, J.C.Q., granted leave to appeal the TAL's decision of October 14, 2025 on all four questions, finding them serious, meritorious, and of general public interest — particularly for the large population of seniors living in private residences. The court simultaneously took the merits of the appeal under deliberation based on the representations made by the parties on April 8, 2026. Costs were reserved to follow the outcome of the appeal on the merits. Because this judgment addresses only the grant of leave to appeal and the taking of the merits under advisement, no final determination has yet been made on the substantive claims, and no monetary award or remedy has been ordered at this stage.