Supreme Court of Canada
Rental Commission et al. v. Sand et al., [1980] 2 S.C.R. 100
Date: 1980-05-07
The Rental Commission, Jean Geoffrion, Q.C. and George Bey, Q.C. Appellants;
and
G. George Sand et al. Respondents;
and
Rockhill Investments Ltd. Mis en cause.
1980: May 7.
Present: Dickson, Beetz, McIntyre, Chouinard and Lamer JJ.
ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR QUEBEC
Administrative law—Decision by the Rental Commission—Factors to be considered in setting rental—Jurisdiction of the Commission—Writ of evocation—Code of Civil Procedure, art. 846—Act to Promote Conciliation between Lessees and Property-Owners, S.Q. 1951-52, c. 20 as amended, ss. 13, 19, 20, 26.
Respondents, lessees of the mis en cause, obtained a writ of evocation from a judge of the Superior Court against a decision of appellant, the Rental Commission, which had reversed a decision of the Rental Administrator. The Superior Court judge held that by refusing to consider evidence that the premises had deteriorated and services had been reduced, the Commission had not merely committed an error of law but had misinterpreted the sections of the Act to Promote Conciliation between Lessees and Property-Owners which lay down its jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal unanimously affirmed the Superior Court judgment.
Held: The appeal is dismissed.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec1, affirming the decision of M.L. Rothman J. of the Superior Court2 to authorize a writ of evocation to be issued against the Rental Commission. Appeal dismissed.
Paule Lafontaine and Robert Monette, for the appellants.
James Khazzam, for the respondents.
David I. Schatia, for the mis en cause.
[Page 101]
English version of the judgment of the Court delivered orally by
DICKSON J.—It will not be necessary to hear you, Mr. Khazzam. We are all of the opinion that no error has been demonstrated in the decision of the Court of Appeal. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed with costs.
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Solicitors for the appellants: Boissonneault, Roy & Poulin, Montreal.
Solicitors for the respondents: Spiegel & Kravetz, Montreal.
Solicitors for the mis en cause: Schatia & Sazant, Montreal.