Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The tenant invoked article 1883 of the Civil Code of Québec to avoid resiliation of her lease for non-payment of rent.
   
• Conflicting testimony arose over whether the landlord's representative had genuinely offered to accept payment of the arrears before judgment.
   
• Evidence revealed a discrepancy between the $880 monthly rent claimed before the Tribunal administratif du logement and the actual rent of $965.
   
• Timing proved decisive, since the relevant date under article 1883 C.c.Q. is when the tenant learns of the judgment, not the date recorded on it.
   
• Witness credibility was central to assessing whether the landlord's representative was seeking payment or pursuing eviction.
   
• Jurisprudence applying a flexible interpretation of article 1883 C.c.Q. guided the court's assessment of the tenant's good-faith efforts to pay.
   

Facts of the case

Anne Renée Poissant, a tenant, opposed the execution of an April 22, 2026 decision of the Tribunal administratif du logement (TAL) that ordered her to pay her landlord, 9533-1997 Québec inc., $2,895 in rent arrears plus interest and legal costs, and that terminated her lease. Poissant had fallen behind on rent for January, February, and March 2026 after being on leave from work and without income since the previous November. At the TAL hearing on March 16, 2026, the administrative decision-maker informed her of the PETAL program, a Tribunal-affiliated initiative aimed at preventing evictions among tenants facing financial hardship. Poissant met with a PETAL representative that same day and was confirmed eligible. On March 25, 2026, PETAL representative Sabrina Denis contacted the landlord's representative, Hadi Jawad, to advise that Poissant's arrears, along with her upcoming April rent, would be paid through the program, and followed up by email offering payment by bank transfer or cheque. Jawad did not respond with the requested confirmation of the debt amount or banking details until April 7, 2026, and repeatedly insisted that Poissant pay directly instead. Further follow-up calls from Denis went unanswered. On May 3, 2026, Poissant made a bank transfer covering her May rent, which the landlord credited on May 4, 2026, but Jawad then told her the payment had instead been applied to her outstanding January rent. Poissant retained lawyer Alexis Lamy-Théberge, who reached Jawad on May 12, 2026. During that call, Jawad confirmed Poissant's PETAL eligibility and stated he held a cheque dated March 31, 2026 for $3,612 payable to 9533, while asking for confirmation of the total debt and an address for delivery. The TAL decision was rendered during this same conversation, though neither party had yet received a copy. Lamy-Théberge emailed Jawad shortly afterward to confirm the arrangement: delivery of the $3,612 cheque the following day, plus a $248 transfer from Poissant, for a combined total of $3,860. That evening, after reviewing the TAL decision, Jawad emailed Lamy-Théberge insisting instead that Poissant vacate the unit.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

Article 1883 of the Civil Code of Québec allows a tenant sued for lease resiliation over unpaid rent to avoid resiliation by paying, before judgment, the rent owed plus costs and interest. The provision rests on the principle that a tenant's right to remain in their dwelling is a cornerstone of residential tenancy protection, matched by the tenant's corresponding obligation to pay rent. Courts have interpreted "before judgment" in article 1883 to mean the date the tenant actually learns of the decision rather than the date recorded on the judgment itself, and have applied the provision flexibly where a tenant acts promptly and in good faith, even if a minor balance remains outstanding.

Reasoning and analysis

Relying on prior decisions interpreting article 1883 C.c.Q., the court noted that a tenant's opposition to eviction may succeed where a minor balance remains owing at the time the tenant learns of the judgment, provided the tenant pays without delay, acts in good faith, and does not unreasonably exploit the "last chance" the provision affords. The court found that Poissant took every reasonable step available to pay her arrears before the TAL decision issued, and that 9533 could not have been unaware of this, since its representative was present at the March 16, 2026 hearing when Poissant was directed to the PETAL program. The court rejected Jawad's testimony that he had withheld banking details because he could not verify Denis's identity, and that payment by cheque had never been offered, given that Denis's March 25, 2026 email clearly documented both an offer to pay by bank transfer or cheque and a request for confirmation of the exact arrears owed. The court also pointed to the discrepancy between the $880 monthly rent claimed by the landlord before the TAL and the actual rent of $965, which explained why Denis had sought confirmation of the debt. On cross-examination, Jawad ultimately acknowledged that his true objective was Poissant's eviction, undermining the credibility of his stated reasons for declining payment. The court concluded that the landlord's position, that Poissant had never attempted to pay before the TAL decision, was unreasonable and contrary to both the letter and spirit of article 1883 C.c.Q.

Ruling and overall outcome

The court allowed Poissant's opposition, annulled the notice of execution, and declared that she had defeated the resiliation of her lease by offering, and repeatedly reiterating her offer, to pay the rent arrears before judgment, including at the hearing itself, where the original cheque payable to 9533 remained available and no interest had been claimed on the arrears. It took note of Poissant's offer to pay the arrears set out in the TAL's April 22, 2026 decision, declared that her lease with 9533-1997 Québec inc. remains in force, and confirmed her right to occupy and peacefully enjoy her apartment at 10168, avenue Hamel, apartment #3, Montreal. The successful party was Anne Renée Poissant, the tenant, and the judgment was rendered with legal costs, though no exact monetary amount for those costs is specified in the decision.