Sometimes, a tenant, in bad faith, will refuse to allow access to his apartment even though there are repairs to be made and he has been duly notified 24 hours prior.
Obstinate refusal from the tenant could lead to the resiliation of the lease. Indeed, in decision, a tenant filed a complain at Montreal City concerning infiltrations of water in the roof of the living room and in the bedroom of her apartment. Following this, the city inspector sent a notice of infraction to the landlord, asking him to do repairs in a certain time limit. The tenant first refused access to her apartment claiming that she needed to go to the hospital and that the landlord’s employee did not have his skill card.
After receiving a second notice from the City and others attempts, on October 17th, 2008, the landlord and his employee tried again to obtain access to the apartment. They could not and, after the City threatened to sue them, the landlord made a demand at the Régie du logement to obtain access to the apartment.
On December 8th, 2008 the Régie du logement concluded that “ [TRANSLATION] the tenant refused to allow access to the landlord for him to make the necessary repairs.” The court then ordered the tenant to allow access to his apartment. Following this, and with the city inspector still insisting about the repairs, the landlord tried many times to obtain access to the apartment, but the tenant still refused to let him.
On August 12th, 2009, the landlord made another claim at the Régie du logement to obtain the resiliation of the lease. By its decision of October 7th, 2009,(1) the Régie du logement resiliated the lease because “[TRANSLATION] the tenant does not want to allow access to the landlord for the necessary repairs to be made and the tenant’s behaviour causes serious prejudices to the landlord.”
The Court concluded that the tenant had acted as if her only objective was for her landlord to be fined by the City and not, as it should have been, to obtain the most needed renovations. The court added that the tenant had acted in complete bad faith and stubbornness. The appeal of this decision was rejected by the court.
(1) Roy c. Frantagelo, (C.Q.), 2010-11-26) QCCQ 10398, SOQUIJ AZ-50695911
