June 28, 2018
Morissette, St-Pierre, Healy
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court dismissing an application for a permanent injunction and a declaratory judgment to have a residential lease declared void. Allowed.
The appellant is the administrator of a building held in divided co-ownership. Article 100 (1) of the building’s by-laws prohibits the rental of units for terms of less than one year. On June 1, 2016, the appellant learned that the respondents were on the verge of “lending” their unit to a relative from California visiting Montreal for three months. In fact, an American actress and her entourage intended to use the unit for the duration of filming. In response to a letter of demand from the appellant, respondent Langleben confirmed that there was an initial three-month lease between Day6 Film Productions Inc. and the respondents, but that the parties were willing to change it to a one-year lease.
The trial judge ruling on the application for a permanent injunction ought to have (i) declared the conduct of the respondents and Day6 unlawful, triggering their contractual and extracontractual liability, respectively; (ii) declared the first and second lease between the parties to be contrary to Article 100 (1) of the building’s by-laws; and (iii) issued an injunction requiring the respondents and Day6 to stop allowing, within a prescribed deadline, the person designated in the first and second lease as “the Tenant”, and her entourage, to remain in the unit.
It is true that such an injunction might be considered an eviction or expulsion order, at least in part, and that the terms of its operation should be laid down to allow a party wishing to act lawfully to do so within a reasonable timeframe. However, such issues can be argued before the judge ruling on the injunction.
An RSS feed allows you to keep up to date with any recent updates published on a website. By subcribing to our RSS feed, you will automatically receive the latest news related to your RSS feed and view them at any time.