Buys duplex, can’t move in
The way this story is told, we seem to be meant to sympathize with the woman who bought a duplex but finds she can’t move in because both flats are occupied by households that don’t want to leave.
Shouldn’t she have informed herself – or been informed by her real estate agent, if she had one – that tenants have rights?
R T 18:28 on 2026-07-14 Permalink
What’s interesting is that no one seems to suggest that there is a bona fide reason to oppose the repossession request. Tenants do have “the right to take all the necessary steps to challenge the repossession request”, but the article makes it sound like this is a stalling tactic.
(Of course, it must have been in the media somewhere else first, as the tenant says they’ve been harassed following media coverage, so it could be that other sources better describe the nature of their objection.)
Kate 18:40 on 2026-07-14 Permalink
Monday the Journal had the story and if anything their version is even more biased on the side of the buyer.
I don’t find any reporting previous to a day ago, so forgive me if I find the claim of harassment following media coverage is dubious.
CE 18:57 on 2026-07-14 Permalink
Generally owners (or their immediate family) can move in to an occupied apartment after they’ve purchased but they have to give an eviction notice within a certain amount of time before the renewal (I’m not sure if it’s 3 months, 6 months or a year). When my partner and I purchased our building, we could have run into difficulties because we used RRSPs for the downpayment which requires you to move in within a year. Thankfully in our case, one of the tenants had already given notice that they were going to move out a few months after the purchase, which was also good because I really did not want to evict someone.
If the tenants were given the acceptable amount of notice, it’s pretty cut and dry that they have to leave. If the owners messed up, all the power to the tenants. They shouldn’t budge and if the owners really want to move in, they should buy the tenants out (which might be cheaper than renting an RV for however many months it takes for the tenants to have to leave).
R T 19:08 on 2026-07-14 Permalink
It was six months in most cases as of a few years ago.
(A few years ago, my partner received a repossession request in January, and I told him to politely tell the landlord to pound sand as it was there weeks too late.)
MarcG 19:28 on 2026-07-14 Permalink
Is there a clause to protect people over a certain age from eviction even in a case like this?
jeather 19:30 on 2026-07-14 Permalink
I’m trying to figure out the timing. It sounds like she sent the repossessions requests (she is repossessing both) in time, they refused in time, and now it’s being adjudicated. She didn’t renew her other lease as a show of good faith, but she was also informed that she would not get an answer before her lease ended, so why did she just do nothing when she knew they would fight it by the end of January? How can she not afford rent anywhere at all, given she’s getting the rent from two apartments?
One tenant says her partner has been there more than 10 years, but that’s only relevant if they’re also over 70.
jeather 20:11 on 2026-07-14 Permalink
Ok, I found the info on the TAL website: https://extranet.tal.gouv.qc.ca/internet/asp/consultation-dossier/plumitif.asp?documents=1&lang=FR&T=c15d4
The two numbers are 937940 and 937935. There was, for each of them, a hearing Apr 1, after requests at the TAL were made Jan 30. One of them he is trying to get legal aid, the other I had trouble reading some of the writing, but it seems like someone (P?) brought the wrong documents, so they were both delayed until May 25.
Living in a trailer right next door with placards accusing the residents of breaking the law does seem like harassment.
Anton 21:30 on 2026-07-14 Permalink
This doesn’t seem like somebody kicking old tenants to lease the place at double the rent, but rather to move in with a 9-head family. Sure the tenants can drag out the process, but if they can stay it would probably because the new owners made some mistake in the process somewhere, or because the legal process is too slow. Why wouldn’t one sympathize with the owners? Just because they are owners? They don’t even want to be landlords.
Seems like the faulty party is the court for lack of a speedy process.
Joey 09:39 on 2026-07-15 Permalink
On reddit someone did some more digging (they found the references jeather posted). Sounds like the tenants were relying on a legal aid lawyer who didn’t show up to the hearing so things got delayed. My impression is that under normal circumstances the repossession would have been permitted in time for the new owners to move in at the end of their lease, but the delay in proceedings caused a delay in the judgment being issued, which meant the inevitable repossession date has been pushed beyond the end of the new owners’ previous lease.
The new owners took a seemingly small risk by assuming they would be installed in their new place by July and they lost – it happens (CBC says it was “a sign of good faith” that she didn’t renew her lease, but obviously she had no intention of needing an apartment beyond July and didn’t want to have to deal with a sublease or a transfer; the CBC reporter needs to work on her skepticism). Why they think it’s civilized to camp out in the driveway of the apartment while the TAL process plays out is beyond me. It’s not the tenants’ fault that the TAL hasn’t issued a judgment. Surely this could be considered harassment (especially since it’s implausible that nine people are living in a trailer in a driveway that has no electricity or plumbing)? Why not just offer some money to get them out of the apartment ASAP?
roberto 11:03 on 2026-07-15 Permalink
Despite the fact that the tenants received the notice of repossession within the required timeframe on December 24, 2025 (as shown in the TAL documents), receiving an eviction notice on Christmas Eve is something that will understandably leave a sour impression.
roberto 11:16 on 2026-07-15 Permalink
I wonder whether there’s any reason to think the tenants have a valid case. Quebec’s repossession rules are quite narrow. For example, they generally don’t allow repossession when a property has multiple owners, unless the co-owners are spouses.
If the building was purchased jointly with her mother, with the intention that each would move into one of the units, that ownership structure could mean they aren’t legally entitled to repossess the tenants’ units.
R T 07:59 on 2026-07-21 Permalink
Update: She will take possession of one of the two units in September. She would be entitled to both units if not for the fact that her mother is on a super visa, which is nonresident status despite being here for up to 5 years.