Bad-faith repossession and renoviction: punitive damages of up to $40,000 in recent rulings

Forty thousand dollars. That is the amount of punitive damages awarded in the Ainsworth v. IF Realties case, one of the rulings highlighted by a recent case-law review of the Administrative Housing Tribunal (TAL, Quebec's rental tribunal). Published on the SOQUIJ blog in July 2025, this review lays out a finding that should give any landlord pause: the courts are sanctioning bad-faith repossession and renoviction with growing severity, and the amounts are climbing. Where we once saw more symbolic penalties, we now speak of sums running into the tens of thousands of dollars — $15,000, $40,000 — for landlords who tried to bypass the rules. This article breaks down what these rulings reveal, why they result in judgments, what it really costs, and above all what should have been done instead. This content is provided for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice.

The facts: a review that's making waves

Let's start with what we know, sticking strictly to the established facts. In July 2025, the legal blog of SOQUIJ — the organization that publishes Quebec case law — released a review of recent TAL rulings dealing with bad-faith repossession and renoviction. The central finding of this review: a marked increase in punitive damages awarded to tenants evicted in these situations. In other words, this is not an isolated decision, but a trend emerging across several judgments.

Among the rulings noted, the Ainsworth v. IF Realties case stands out for its amount: $40,000 in punitive damages was awarded. The review also mentions other rulings that awarded sums in the range of $15,000 and $40,000. The common thread linking these judgments is clear: when a landlord repossesses a dwelling or evicts a tenant under a false pretext, the courts no longer settle for repairing the harm — they punish.

Here we must be precise about what these figures represent and what they do not. The judgments are public documents: we can therefore name the case and cite the amount awarded. On the other hand, we will not detail here the precise circumstances of each file beyond what the review sets out, so as not to assert anything inaccurate. What matters is not the particular story of one landlord, but the signal these rulings collectively send to anyone considering recovering a dwelling by a roundabout route.

$40,000, $15,000: what do these amounts mean?

A raw figure, out of context, doesn't say much. To grasp the real significance of these rulings, you have to understand what punitive damages are — and how they differ from "ordinary" damages.

Compensatory or punitive: two distinct logics

When a tenant is evicted in bad faith, a court can award two types of damages, which pursue entirely different goals:

• Compensatory damages aim to repair. They cover the tenant's concrete losses: moving costs, the difference between the old rent and the new one (often higher), trouble, inconvenience, lost time, various expenses. Their logic is simple: put the person back in the situation they should have been in had the wrongdoing not occurred.
• Punitive damages, on the other hand, repair nothing. They sanction wrongful conduct and seek to deter it. Their amount does not depend on a loss to be covered, but on the seriousness of the wrongdoing, whether it was intentional, and the need to send a message. It's a penalty, not a reimbursement.

It is this distinction that makes the amounts noted in the review so significant. When you read "$40,000 in punitive damages," you have to understand that this sum is added — potentially — to the compensatory damages paid separately. The total bill can therefore be considerably higher than the punitive amount alone. A landlord who thought they were "saving money" by avoiding an agreement can end up paying far more, having also gone through months of proceedings.

Why $40,000 and not $4,000?

There is no set rate or fixed ceiling for punitive damages: each amount is set according to the circumstances. The Civil Code directs the courts toward several factors: the seriousness of the wrongdoing, whether the conduct was intentional or not, the wrongdoer's financial situation, and the extent of the compensation already obtained by the victim. In practice, the more blatant and calculated the bad faith — a scheme built from scratch, a front person, a quick re-rental at an inflated rent — the higher the sanction climbs. An amount of $40,000 reflects a wrongdoing deemed serious and a court's determination to deter firmly.

Why it was illegal: the legal principle

To understand why these landlords were found liable, you have to go back to the principle that structures all of Quebec rental law: the tenant's right to remain in the dwelling. It's the cornerstone, and everything else flows from it.

The right to remain in the dwelling (art. 1936 C.c.Q.)

Article 1936 of the Civil Code of Quebec (C.c.Q.) grants every tenant a personal right to remain in the dwelling: as long as they meet their obligations (paying rent, not causing disturbances), they have the right to stay in their home. This is not a favour, it's a strong right. The practical consequence is decisive: a landlord cannot simply decide to repossess their dwelling because they would like to re-rent it at a higher price or change tenants. They need a reason provided for by law — repossession to house themselves or a relative, eviction for a project affecting the dwelling — and they must exercise it in good faith.

This is precisely where the shoe pinches in bad-faith repossession and renoviction cases: the invoked reason is a disguise. They claim to want to house a child, a parent; they speak of major renovations that would require the departure; but the real intention is to empty the dwelling to put it back on the market at a higher rent. The gap between the stated reason and the true reason is the heart of the wrongdoing.

Bad-faith repossession and damages (art. 1968 C.c.Q.)

The legislature did not leave this diversion without sanction. Article 1968 C.c.Q. allows a tenant evicted following a bad-faith repossession or eviction to claim damages — and punitive damages. This is the direct legal basis for the judgments noted in the review. The tenant does not have to "forgive" because they left: if they later discover that the repossession was bogus (the dwelling is re-rented to a third party, the announced relative never moved in), they can act. It is often after the departure that the bad faith comes to light, and the law specifically allows intervention at that point.

Harassment to push someone out (art. 1902 C.c.Q.)

A second grievance is often added to this foundation. Article 1902 C.c.Q. prohibits a landlord — or anyone — from harassing a tenant in a way that restricts their peaceful enjoyment of the premises or drives them to leave the dwelling. In the mechanics of a renoviction, the pressure applied to make the tenant crack — disruptive work, veiled threats, neglected services, repeated notices — can constitute this prohibited harassment. We devote an entire guide to this question: harassment of a tenant in Quebec. When harassment is added to bad faith, the conduct appears all the more wrongful in the court's eyes — and the sanction all the heavier.

Punitive damages: art. 1621 C.c.Q. and art. 49 of the Charter

Two other provisions frame the "punitive" part. Article 1621 C.c.Q. specifies the function of punitive damages (deterrence, prevention) and the assessment factors mentioned above. And article 49 of the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms allows punitive damages in cases of unlawful and intentional interference with a protected right — the right to the peaceful enjoyment of one's property, to respect for one's private life, to dignity. An eviction organized under a false pretext can check these boxes. It is this combination — Civil Code and Charter — that gives the courts the tools to hit hard.

The consequences: beyond the cheque

We tend to reduce these cases to the amount of the judgment. That's a mistake in perspective: the cheque is only part of the cost. The real consequences of a bad-faith repossession unfold on several levels.

The full financial cost

The punitive amount — $15,000, $40,000 — is the visible tip. Beneath it: the compensatory damages, which can themselves be substantial; the costs related to the proceedings; and the fact that punitive damages are, as a general rule, uninsurable. An insurance policy rarely covers an intentional fault, precisely because insuring bad faith would contradict the very logic of insurance. The landlord found liable therefore often pays out of pocket, in full.

Time and energy

A TAL dispute over a contested repossession is not a formality settled in an afternoon. It's months of case files, hearings, evidence to gather, uncertainty. During that time, the dwelling is not "optimized": it's tied up in litigation. The shortcut meant to save time actually wastes an enormous amount of it.

Reputation — "you only have one name"

This is perhaps the most underestimated consequence. TAL rulings are public. They are published, indexed, searchable. A judgment for bad-faith repossession permanently attaches a name — that of an individual as much as a company — to a practice deemed abusive. In an era when renoviction has become a social issue closely followed by the Quebec media, this kind of case can make headlines, fuel news reports, and circulate on social media. For a real estate investor who intends to build a portfolio over the long term, tarnishing their name on a single poorly handled transaction is a very bad calculation. You only have one name in life, and it's worth more than the rent gap on a single dwelling.

The risk of losing control of the timeline

Finally, bad faith can completely backfire on its author: not only do they pay, but sometimes they don't even get what they were after, or they get it much later and much more expensively than through the negotiated path. The tenant who refuses and contests keeps the upper hand; the landlord, for their part, ends up at the mercy of a court they themselves have displeased. To dig deeper into what a landlord concretely risks, see our analyses of the illegal eviction of a tenant and of the fines tied to renoviction.

Why the courts are tightening the screws

The rise in amounts noted by the review is no accident: it fits into a specific context. Understanding this context helps to gauge why the risk, for a landlord, will most likely only increase.

First, the housing crisis. The shortage of affordable housing and soaring rents have made abusive evictions a major social issue in Quebec. Every dwelling illegally recovered and then re-rented at a much higher price effectively removes an affordable unit from the market. The courts, like the legislature, are sensitive to this reality.

Next, the tightening of the framework. The rules surrounding eviction and repossession have been tightened in recent years, and the attention paid to renoviction has intensified. We explain this underlying movement in our article why the renoviction law was tightened. In this climate, tolerance for schemes has narrowed.

Finally, the deterrent function of punitive damages itself. If penalties stay low, they become a mere "cost of doing business" that a calculating landlord accepts paying to recover a lucrative dwelling. By raising the amounts, the courts make the calculation a losing one: that is the whole point of a sanction meant to discourage, not just to repair. The SOQUIJ review reflects precisely this shift. In other words: the shortcut was already risky; it's becoming downright dangerous.

What should have been done: the legal path

Here's the constructive part, because behind each of these judgments there is almost always a perfectly legitimate objective, poorly executed. The landlord didn't want to "cause harm": they wanted to recover a dwelling frozen below market to bring it back to its fair value. That objective is legal and sound. It's the method — the false pretext — that is wrongful. Yet there is a method that achieves the same goal without any of these risks: the voluntary agreement.

Cash for keys: recovering amicably

Cash for keys is a lease termination by mutual agreement. The principle is simple: the landlord offers the tenant to end the lease and leave on an agreed date, in exchange for compensation. The tenant is free to accept or refuse. If they accept, both parties sign a clear agreement, and the matter is closed: no reason to prove, no dispute, no possible false repossession, no grounds for punitive damages. Nothing is diverted, since there's nothing to divert: it's an agreement, not a manoeuvre.

The financial logic is unassailable. A dwelling frozen at $900 in a $1,600 market represents considerable dormant value: on the asset, the capitalized rent gap frequently runs into the tens of thousands of dollars. Offering the tenant fair compensation to leave — even a generous one — remains, in many cases, largely profitable, and infinitely less risky than a scheme. To understand the mechanics and legality from A to Z, see our guide Cash for keys in Quebec, or our dedicated article on paying a tenant to leave, legally.

Cash for raise: without even making the tenant leave

There is an even gentler variant when the objective is not to recover the dwelling, but simply to bring the rent closer to market. Cash for raise consists of agreeing with the tenant on a negotiated rent increase, often in exchange for a benefit, without them having to move. No one leaves, no one contests, and the building's yield improves. It's the exact opposite of the adversarial logic that leads to the reviewed judgments.

And what about a genuine repossession?

Let's be clear: repossession of a dwelling remains a real and legitimate right when it's sincere. If a landlord, or an eligible relative, is really going to live in the dwelling, repossession is the appropriate path — provided the conditions, notice, and time limits are respected, and provided good faith can be demonstrated. The problem is never repossession in itself; it's the false repossession. We detail the dividing line in our guides on bad-faith repossession of a dwelling and on illegal renoviction in Quebec. The rule is disarmingly simple: repossession to occupy, voluntary agreement to recover and optimize.

Why go through professionals

You might think that a voluntary agreement is "just offering money." In practice, the line between a clean negotiation and a process that goes off the rails is thinner than it seems — and that's precisely where the support of a professional makes all the difference.

The risk, when a landlord goes it alone, is not so much miscalculating an amount as sliding without realizing it from voluntary to coerced. An offer repeated insistently, even involuntary pressure, a tone that turns into a threat of repossession: and suddenly an amicable process takes on the appearance of harassment (art. 1902 C.c.Q.) or of a disguised repossession. What almost all the reviewed judgments have in common is a landlord who wanted to go too fast, alone, and who crossed a line they hadn't seen.

Calling on voluntary-agreement specialists means:

• Structuring the process so that it remains, at every step, clearly voluntary and documented — the opposite of a false repossession.
• Calibrating the compensation based on the real value created, so that it's profitable for the landlord and attractive to the tenant.
• Drafting a solid agreement, clear and balanced, that protects both parties and closes the door to later disputes.
• Keeping the landlord on the right side of the line, far from harassment, pressure, and the false pretext.

We detail this logic in our article why go through a pro to recover a dwelling. This is exactly what Opti Loyer does: recover and optimize dwellings through voluntary agreements, in compliance with the TAL. And the model has no catch: the initial audit is free, and we are paid only for results — you pay only if the agreement is reached and you obtain the result. The financial risk of the process rests on us, not on you.

The rulings reviewed by SOQUIJ all tell, at bottom, the same story: a landlord preferred a shortcut to an agreement, and that shortcut cost them tens of thousands of dollars, months of their life, and a stain on their name. The lesson is not "don't optimize your rents" — that's a legitimate objective. The lesson is: do it the right way. There is a legal, safe, and often more profitable path to reach exactly the same goal. Between $40,000 in punitive damages and an amicably signed agreement, the choice is hardly a dilemma.

This content is provided for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. The TAL's rules, time limits, and amounts change, and every situation is unique: verify the rules in force or consult a legal advisor before acting.