With inflation, the reduction in available housing and the increase in the rates applicable to the calculation of the rent increase under the Regulation respecting the criteria for setting rent (Regulation), it is normal to see larger rent increases than we have been used to in the past. As a result, more tenants are likely to refuse the proposed increase. Indeed, the law provides for the right of the tenant to refuse, within one month of receiving a notice of modification of the lease, the modifications provided for therein, while renewing his lease. It will then be up to the landlord to apply to the Tribunal administratif du logement (TAL) to set the rent or rule on any other modification of the terms of the lease (1).
The Tribunal then has little leeway when setting rent, as it applies the calculation set out in the Regulations. The onus is then on the landlord to prove the expenses they have entered on the "Rent Determination Information Form" using the relevant supporting documents and invoices. Obviously, there are costs associated with opening a file at the TAL. The principle applicable to the determination of rent is that it is the landlord who bears the costs of his application for fixing (2).
If, however, the landlord requests that these costs be borne by the tenant, certain judgments have authorized the tenant to be ordered to pay the costs, in certain very specific circumstances only. These criteria are cumulative:
- The adjustment authorized by the court must be equal to or greater than the amount requested in the rent increase notice;
- The tenant has used his right of refusal unreasonably.
The tenant is considered to have used his or her duty unreasonably in the following circumstances: "Thus, a tenant who had the information relevant to the calculation of the increase to make an informed decision regarding the proposed increase or who systematically refused to negotiate or discuss with the landlord could be ordered to reimburse the landlord for the fees paid by the landlord for the filing of the application, as well as some of the costs associated with its significance" (3).
As a result, if the landlord has allowed the tenant to determine the merits of the increase before filing the application with the Tribunal and has allowed the tenant to verify certain bills to a reasonable extent, the landlord is likely to be reimbursed for the costs of the application. Also, the onus is on the landlord to prove the refusal that is unreasonable in the circumstances. However, these criteria are not absolute, as the judge explained in the following excerpt: "Also, there are cases where tenants will have to reimburse the costs of the application to the landlord or part of them even if they have not received the calculation grid or the invoices, and conversely, there are cases where the landlord must assume the costs even if the suggested amount of rent is confirmed by the Court and that he had sent the calculation chart to the tenant and offered to show him his bills" (4).
The TAL may therefore have to consider the following elements in its decision: "the recurrence of refusals by a tenant when the landlord has obtained confirmation from the Court in the past of the amount of rent he was requesting, the complexity of the documents and invoices that could justify the requested adjustment, the attitude of the parties when the lease is renewed as well as the size of the amount of the rent adjustment requested. There may also be other amendments requested by the landlord in her notice of renewal of the lease." (5).
Thus, in the conclusions, in reading certain recent judgments, we can see this type of statement: "ORDERS the tenant to pay the sum of $107.00 in reimbursement of the costs of the application and its notification".
The Tribunal then has little leeway when setting rent, as it applies the calculation set out in the Regulations. The onus is then on the landlord to prove the expenses they have entered on the "Rent Determination Information Form" using the relevant supporting documents and invoices. Obviously, there are costs associated with opening a file at the TAL. The principle applicable to the determination of rent is that it is the landlord who bears the costs of his application for fixing (2).
If, however, the landlord requests that these costs be borne by the tenant, certain judgments have authorized the tenant to be ordered to pay the costs, in certain very specific circumstances only. These criteria are cumulative:
- The adjustment authorized by the court must be equal to or greater than the amount requested in the rent increase notice;
- The tenant has used his right of refusal unreasonably.
The tenant is considered to have used his or her duty unreasonably in the following circumstances: "Thus, a tenant who had the information relevant to the calculation of the increase to make an informed decision regarding the proposed increase or who systematically refused to negotiate or discuss with the landlord could be ordered to reimburse the landlord for the fees paid by the landlord for the filing of the application, as well as some of the costs associated with its significance" (3).
As a result, if the landlord has allowed the tenant to determine the merits of the increase before filing the application with the Tribunal and has allowed the tenant to verify certain bills to a reasonable extent, the landlord is likely to be reimbursed for the costs of the application. Also, the onus is on the landlord to prove the refusal that is unreasonable in the circumstances. However, these criteria are not absolute, as the judge explained in the following excerpt: "Also, there are cases where tenants will have to reimburse the costs of the application to the landlord or part of them even if they have not received the calculation grid or the invoices, and conversely, there are cases where the landlord must assume the costs even if the suggested amount of rent is confirmed by the Court and that he had sent the calculation chart to the tenant and offered to show him his bills" (4).
The TAL may therefore have to consider the following elements in its decision: "the recurrence of refusals by a tenant when the landlord has obtained confirmation from the Court in the past of the amount of rent he was requesting, the complexity of the documents and invoices that could justify the requested adjustment, the attitude of the parties when the lease is renewed as well as the size of the amount of the rent adjustment requested. There may also be other amendments requested by the landlord in her notice of renewal of the lease." (5).
Thus, in the conclusions, in reading certain recent judgments, we can see this type of statement: "ORDERS the tenant to pay the sum of $107.00 in reimbursement of the costs of the application and its notification".
(1) Code civil du Québec, RLRQ c CCQ-1991, art.1945 et 1947;
(2) Cour du Jardin inc. c. Pordes, 2024 QCTAL 3997;
(3) Cour du Jardin inc. c. Pordes, 2024 QCTAL 3997 au para. 29, citant Warren c. Lamothe, 2013 CanLII 132138 (QC RDL);
(4) Habitations du Trentenaire de la Shapem c. Bamba, 2024 QCTAL 4175, au para 18;
(5) Idem, au para. 17.