Some dates stay with you. For a Montreal tenant featured by Radio-Canada, it will be December 28 — the day when, after ten years in the same dwelling, he found a notice inviting him to leave the premises. Right in the heart of the holidays, between Christmas and New Year's, at the moment when you are supposed to be with family rather than in front of an administrative form. The report struck a chord because it captures, in a single image, what thousands of Quebec tenants dread : losing their home not because of any fault, but because a long-occupied dwelling has become, in the eyes of some landlords, an obstacle to "optimize." This article revisits that case, the legal principle it puts at stake, what such an act can cost — and the path that should have been followed.
In this article
The facts : a notice on December 28
In early 2024, Radio-Canada devoted a report to the evictions that occur during the holiday season. At the heart of the story : François Viau, a tenant who had occupied his dwelling for about a decade and who received, according to the report, a notice on December 28. The choice of timing — a few days after Christmas, to a long-standing tenant — struck public opinion because it distills all the distress these steps cause in those who endure them.
The report is a reminder of a principle that too many landlords ignore or pretend to ignore : a repossession invoked to house a relative, if the dwelling is then re-rented at a higher price, amounts to bad faith. In other words, the problem is not wanting to take back a dwelling ; it is doing so by dressing up the operation with a reason that is not the real one. We will return to this principle in detail, because it is what separates a sound process from one that can turn against its author.
Let us be clear about our stance from the outset. We rely here on what the report describes ; we pass no judgment on any specific file that may not have been decided, and we use conditional language where allegations are involved. What interests us is not to designate a culprit, but to understand why this kind of situation goes off the rails and how a prudent landlord goes about it differently.
Why the timing hurts — even if it is not illegal in itself
Let us say it plainly to avoid any misunderstanding : Quebec law does not prohibit sending a notice on a specific calendar date. There is no legal "holiday truce" that would render a December 28 notice void solely because of its date. It is the deadlines and the form that govern the validity of a notice, not the time of year.
But the story does not end there. Context, for its part, matters enormously in the overall assessment of a file. A notice dropped in the middle of the holiday season, on a tenant settled in for ten years, if it is part of a pattern of pressure or of a process whose sincerity is doubtful, feeds the impression of a brutal maneuver. And a tribunal can hold on to that impression when it weighs good faith. The calendar is not an offence ; it is a revealer.
Why this kind of process is a problem
To understand what goes wrong in an eviction of the kind described by the report, we have to return to three pillars of Quebec landlord-tenant law. None of them is a detail : together, they explain why a poorly conceived shortcut so often turns into a boomerang.
1. The right to remain in the dwelling (art. 1936 C.c.Q.)
The starting point is that the tenant is not a guest who can be asked to leave. Article 1936 of the Civil Code of Quebec enshrines the right to remain in the dwelling : a tenant in good standing, who pays their rent and meets their obligations, has the right to stay in their dwelling. That is the rule ; everything else is merely an exception to it. Repossession is precisely one of those rare exceptions — and because it is an exception, it is tightly framed. You do not dislodge a ten-year tenant "because it is convenient" : you need a reason that the law recognizes, and that reason must be genuine.
2. Good faith : taking back to occupy, not to re-rent
This is the heart of the matter, and it is exactly the principle the report highlights. A repossession serves to live in the dwelling — the landlord themselves or an eligible relative (spouse, child, parent, other relative provided for by law). It does not serve to empty the premises in order to put them back on the market at a higher rent. Invoking the need to house a relative, then re-renting the dwelling at a higher price to a third party, is the textbook case of bad-faith repossession.
The mechanics of proof are merciless for anyone bluffing. The law often presumes good faith at the outset, but as soon as a challenge raises a serious doubt, the burden shifts : it is up to the landlord to demonstrate that their occupancy plan was genuine. And nothing betrays a false repossession as starkly as a dwelling re-rented at a higher price, to a stranger, a few months after the tenant's departure. The announced beneficiary never moved in ? The rent jumped ? Demonstrating good faith becomes very hard to sustain. We detail this mechanism in our guide on bad-faith repossession.
3. Harassment (art. 1902 C.c.Q.)
There is a third safeguard, often forgotten. Article 1902 of the Civil Code of Quebec prohibits harassing a tenant in a way that restricts their right to peaceful enjoyment of the premises or leads them to leave the dwelling. Multiplying notices, exerting repeated pressure, choosing moments apt to destabilize : if the whole is aimed at pushing a tenant toward the exit, it can tip into harassment.
This is where the famous December 28 regains all its weight. Taken in isolation, a notice on that date remains legal. But inserted into a strategy of attrition — a notice here, a threat there, a moment chosen for its effect — it can feed a finding of harassment. And harassment, for its part, gives rise to damages, including punitive damages. To go further, see our article on harassment of a tenant in Quebec.
Eviction, repossession, renoviction : naming things correctly
The vocabulary muddles everything. In everyday language, "eviction" is used to mean any forced departure, whereas the law distinguishes several realities. Repossession aims to house the landlord or a relative. Eviction in the strict sense is tied to a project affecting the dwelling itself (subdivision, enlargement, change of use). And renoviction — a word coined by the media — refers to the use of renovation work as a pretext to get rid of a tenant. This last abuse is now in the legislator's sights ; we explain it in our feature on illegal renoviction in Quebec. The common thread in all of these missteps : a stated reason that is not the real reason.
Key takeaways
Three articles of the Civil Code frame these situations : the right to remain in the dwelling (art. 1936), the prohibition of bad faith in repossession, and the prohibition of harassment (art. 1902). A pretext repossession aimed at re-renting at a higher price can violate all three at once — and the burden of proving good faith rests on the landlord.
The consequences : damages, reputation, headlines
People sometimes think that the worst that can happen, in a contested repossession, is to "lose" and have to keep your tenant. That is far below the reality. The consequences of a process deemed to be in bad faith unfold on three fronts, and each one can hurt.
1. Damages — and punitive damages
The tenant evicted in bad faith can claim damages for the harm suffered : moving costs, the rent gap on their new dwelling, trouble and inconvenience. To this may be added punitive damages, whose function is not to compensate a loss but to penalize the conduct and deter it. A crucial detail : these remedies remain open even after the tenant has left. A landlord who thinks they are in the clear because the dwelling is finally empty may see the bill arrive months later. We put a figure on the possible scale of these penalties in our article on the fine for renoviction in Quebec.
2. Reputation : you only have one name
The cost that appears on no invoice is often the heaviest. A landlord whose name is associated with a brutal eviction — especially when it lands in a national news report — carries that label for a long time. Prospective tenants search. Business partners do too. In a market where trust is currency, ending up on the wrong side of a headline leaves a mark that money does not easily buy back.
3. The headlines : the media's magnifying-glass effect
Holiday-season evictions have become a recurring media subject, precisely because they distill a felt injustice. A file that, twenty years ago, would have stayed confined to the tribunal can today become a national example within a few hours. The landlord then loses control of the narrative : it is no longer they who explain their situation, it is the report that tells it. We analyze this phenomenon in our article on renovictions in the Quebec media.
What should have been done : the legal path
Here is the constructive part, the one that interests the good-faith landlord. Because behind many of these cases lies a perfectly legitimate goal : taking back a dwelling frozen far below market in order to restore it to its fair value. The problem is never the goal ; it is the tool chosen to reach it. And there is a simple rule to avoid getting it wrong.
The right question : is someone eligible really going to live there?
- Yes. Is an eligible relative genuinely going to move in ? Repossession is the appropriate path. Respect the real reason, the compliant notice, the deadlines in force, and be ready to document your good faith — because you are the one who will have to prove it if challenged.
- No. Is your real goal to re-rent, renovate, or optimize ? Repossession is not the tool : using it that way is exactly the mistake in the report. The appropriate path is a voluntary agreement.
Cash for keys : the tool made to take back without forcing
The voluntary agreement — often called cash for keys — answers exactly the need that pushes so many landlords toward a false repossession. The principle is crystal clear : rather than invoking an occupancy reason that does not exist, you offer the tenant an agreement. They agree to end the lease and leave on an agreed date, in exchange for compensation. It is legal, it is voluntary, and it is win-win.
The contrast with a contested repossession is striking. Here, no reason to justify, no burden of proof, no risk of being deemed to have acted in bad faith : since both parties freely consent and sign a clear agreement, there is simply nothing to contest. The tenant is never forced ; they agree because it is in their interest. We explain the full mechanics — legality, calculation, amount to offer, drafting the agreement — in our guide Cash for keys in Quebec and on our Cash for Keys service page.
Applied to the case in the report, the reasoning is self-evident. A dwelling occupied for ten years is almost always a dwelling locked in well below market — which is precisely what creates the temptation to force the issue. Yet that is exactly the situation where cash for keys shines : offering compensation, taking back the dwelling cleanly, bringing it up to standard, and re-renting it at its fair value frequently creates value that runs into the tens of thousands of dollars on the asset — all without a contested notice, without punitive damages, and without a news report. To gauge this dormant value, our article on below-market rent and building value details the calculation.
Key takeaways
Repossession to occupy ; voluntary agreement to take back and optimize. The ten-year tenant in the report should not have received a pretext notice on December 28 : he should have received an offer he was free to accept. Same goal for the landlord, radically different outcome.
Why go through professionals
One honest question remains : if the voluntary agreement is so simple, why do so many landlords still choose the shortcut that turns against them ? The answer comes down to one word : improvisation. The cases that end up in the headlines almost always share the same common denominator — a landlord who wanted to move fast, alone, without weighing the risk or mastering the rules.
Yet taking back a dwelling cleanly requires precise know-how. You have to assess the real value that returning it to market will create, calculate compensation that is both attractive to the tenant and profitable for the landlord, conduct a respectful negotiation, and draft a solid agreement that protects both parties and closes the door to unpleasant surprises. Each of these steps, poorly executed, can sink the operation or inflate its cost. This is precisely the subject of our article on why go through a professional to take back a dwelling.
The Opti Loyer approach : pay only for results, zero risk
This is exactly Opti Loyer's line of work. We help landlords take back and optimize their dwellings through voluntary agreements, in compliance with the rules of the Tribunal administratif du logement. Our model is designed to flip the relationship with risk :
- Free audit. We look together at the dormant value of your building, with no commitment.
- Voluntary agreements, never coercion. The tenant agrees freely ; there is no false repossession, no pressure, no invented reason.
- Pay only for results. You pay only if the agreement is reached and you get the outcome. The financial risk is on our side.
The underlying reasoning is simple. A pretext repossession can "save" a compensation in the short term, but it puts tens of thousands of dollars in potential damages at stake — and above all, it puts your name at stake. You only get one name in life. Protecting it is worth infinitely more than the amount you think you are saving by cutting corners. If a relative is truly going to live in the dwelling, do a repossession, honestly and by the rules. Otherwise, do not misuse repossession : let's talk about a voluntary agreement, the tool designed for exactly your goal. Discover our approach to rent optimization too, or request your free analysis directly.
December 28 will remain, for the tenant in the report, the date of a notice received at the worst possible moment. But the case carries a lesson that reaches far beyond his own : a shortcut — the pretext repossession to re-rent at a higher price — saves nothing ; it exposes you to damages, to punitive damages, and to a lasting reputational cost. The legal path exists, it is simpler than people think, and it reaches the same goal without gambling your name : the voluntary agreement. Repossession to occupy, agreement to optimize ; and when in doubt, validate the rules in force or consult before acting, never after.
This content is provided for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. The facts mentioned come from a news report ; undecided situations are reported in the conditional. TAL rules and deadlines evolve — validate the terms in force or consult a legal advisor.
