The case concerns a lessee who failed to pay the agreed monthly rent
The Quebec Court of Appeal has refused to stay executing an eviction order due to doubts about the court’s jurisdiction and the lessee’s dilatory tactics to avoid execution.
In Regan c. Progeres Inc., 2023 QCCA 1328, James Francis Regan and Progeres Inc. entered a lease agreement for a residential property in Westmount, Quebec. Regan failed to pay the agreed monthly rent, so Progeres sought to terminate the lease and Regan’s eviction. The Administrative Housing Tribunal (AHT) ruled that the termination of the lease was justified. The AHT ordered Regan to be evicted and condemned him to pay all unpaid rents.
A few months later, the AHT issued another decision, finding that Regan was using dilatory tactics to avoid the execution of the AHT’s prior decision. Consequently, the AHT prohibited Regan from submitting any further application for retraction of the AHT’s previous decision, unless authorized by the AHT chairman or his representative.
Regan was served with an eviction notice. He made ex parte representations to the Court of Quebec, stating that his retraction proceedings were still pending before the AHT and that the eviction notice he had received had taken him by surprise. He also claimed that he had paid the rent, and consequently, the eviction should be stayed. The court ordered the stay of Regan’s eviction.
Regan later filed an ex-parte 30-day extension of the stay of execution of the eviction order. Regan did not apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Quebec. The court ultimately ruled that Regan lacked credibility and had misled the court regarding the payment of the rent on other matters. The court also noted that he showed no respect for the judiciary. Ultimately, the court rejected Regan’s application for an extension of the stay of execution.
Regan went to the Quebec Court of Appeal, challenging the dismissal of his motion for an extension of the stay of execution and the order of his eviction from the leased property.
The court ultimately dismissed Regan’s appeal. The court expressed doubts about its jurisdiction, stating that appeals from decisions of the AHT must be initiated before the Court of Quebec upon leave of a judge of that court. The judgment of the Court of Quebec concerning such an appeal is itself without appeal.
The court said that the application for a stay is within the court’s prerogative to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The court considered itself without jurisdiction to grant a stay in this case.
Nonetheless, the court said that even if it had jurisdiction, it would still dismiss the application because the records clearly established Regan’s consistent and suspect pattern of dilatory tactics before the courts to avoid executing the eviction order.
Regan failed to convince the court that his application had any merit. Accordingly, the court dismissed his application for extension of the stay of execution of eviction.
