Some figures tell a story all on their own. In June 2026, Radio-Canada reported that repossession requests had risen sharply in several Quebec cities : in Sherbrooke, they reportedly went from about 13 to 60 in one year ; in Granby, from 4 to 19 ; and in Montreal, they reportedly reached 845. A fourfold increase, sometimes more, in an already tense context of housing crisis and shortage of affordable rentals. But the raw number is not the most troubling part. What drew reaction was a detail reported by the story : these repossessions reportedly target mostly low-rent units. Yet that is exactly the type of unit suspected of being targeted not to house a relative, but to empty it and re-rent it at a higher price. This article revisits this warning sign, the legal principle it puts into play, what a false repossession can cost — and the path to follow when the real goal is to optimize a unit.
In this article
The facts : a surge concentrated on low rents
The Radio-Canada report paints a striking statistical picture. From one year to the next, the number of repossession requests recorded reportedly jumped markedly : Sherbrooke goes from about 13 to 60, Granby from 4 to 19, and Montreal reaches 845. So we are talking about an increase that, in Sherbrooke, approaches or even exceeds a factor of four. Taken on its own, a rise in repossessions could be explained by very real needs : landlords who sincerely want to house a child who has become an adult, an aging parent, or themselves. An honest repossession, carried out to genuinely occupy the unit, is perfectly legitimate — we will come back to this.
But the report points to something that changes how these figures read : the concentration of these requests on low-rent units. It is this detail that fuels suspicion. Because a unit that has been occupied for a long time at a rent well below market is precisely the one where the temptation to force the issue is strongest. When the statistics show that these are the units targeted first, it becomes reasonable to ask how many of these repossessions truly serve to house someone — and how many serve, in reality, to recover a low rent in order to put it back at the full price.
A signal, not a verdict
Let us clarify our position right away, because it matters. A rise in repossession requests is not, in itself, proof of a wave of abuse. Every case is different, and many of these repossessions are no doubt sincere. We rely here on what the report states ; we pass no judgment on any specific case, and we use cautious language where it is a matter of a trend to be interpreted rather than a settled fact. What interests us is not to single out culprits, but to understand why this type of statistic worries tenant advocates — and how a good faith landlord goes about not ending up, without meaning to, on the wrong side of the line.
Why low rents are in the crosshairs
The link between "low rent" and "suspicious repossession" is no accident, and it is worth explaining. In Quebec, rent increases are regulated and a tenant in good standing benefits from strong protection against increases. As a result : a unit rented for ten or fifteen years can end up several hundred dollars below the market price. For the landlord, this gap represents locked-in value — money "left on the table" every month. Repossession then becomes a temptation : on the surface, it looks like a "clean" way to recover the unit without negotiating. Except that repossession was never designed for this, and using it for that purpose exposes it precisely to the suspicion the report highlights. We detail this dormant-value mechanism in our article on below-market rent and the value of the building.
Why this signal is concerning : the legal principle
To understand what is wrong with a pretext repossession of the kind suspected here, we need to go back to three pillars of Quebec rental law. None is a detail : together, they explain why a statistic like Sherbrooke's sets off the alarm, and why a poorly chosen 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 a tenant is not a guest who can be asked to leave. Article 1936 of the Civil Code of Quebec (C.c.Q., the code governing private law in 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 unit. 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 remove a long-standing tenant "because their rent has become low" : you need a reason the law recognizes, and that reason must be real. A low rent is not a repossession reason ; it is, in fact, exactly what the protection of the right to remain in the dwelling seeks to preserve.
2. Good faith : repossessing to occupy, not to re-rent
This is the heart of the matter, and it is exactly the principle the statistical signal calls into question. A repossession serves to live in the unit — the landlord themselves or an eligible relative (spouse, child, parent, other relative provided 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 unit at a higher price to a third party, is the textbook case of the bad faith repossession.
The evidentiary mechanics 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 show that the occupancy plan was real. And nothing exposes a false repossession as bluntly as a low-rent unit re-rented much more expensively, 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. This is precisely why the concentration of repossessions on low rents is concerning : statistically, it looks like what we would observe if a share of these steps were pretexts. We explore this mechanism further in our guide on the bad faith repossession.
3. Damages in cases of bad faith (art. 1968 C.c.Q.)
This is where the law shows its teeth. Article 1968 of the Civil Code of Quebec allows a tenant evicted or whose unit was repossessed in bad faith to claim damages for the harm suffered, as well as punitive damages meant to sanction the landlord's conduct. A crucial detail : this remedy remains available whether or not the tenant consented to the repossession, and it can be exercised even after their departure. In other words, a landlord who thinks they are in the clear because the unit is finally free may see the bill arrive long afterward. A false repossession is therefore not an operation "won in advance" : it is a latent debt.
4. Harassment (art. 1902 C.c.Q.)
There is a fourth 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 unit. Multiplying notices, applying repeated pressure, choosing moments designed to destabilize : if the whole aims to push a tenant toward the exit, it can tip into harassment. In a climate where repossessions are multiplying, this risk is not theoretical : a landlord in a hurry to recover a low rent can slip, without always realizing it, from a legitimate step into a war of attrition. And harassment, too, gives rise to damages, including punitive ones. To go further, see our article on tenant harassment in Quebec.
Repossession, eviction, renoviction : naming things correctly
Vocabulary often muddles the public debate around these figures. In everyday language, we say "eviction" to describe 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 unit itself — subdivision, enlargement, change of use. And renoviction, a word coined by the media, refers to the use of renovations as a pretext to get rid of a tenant. This last abuse is now in the legislator's crosshairs ; we explain it in our feature on illegal renoviction in Quebec. The common thread of all these missteps : a stated reason that is not the real reason. That is exactly what the Sherbrooke statistic invites us to watch for.
Key takeaways
Four benchmarks frame these situations : the right to remain in the dwelling (art. 1936), the prohibition of bad faith in repossession, the damages and punitive damages in cases of bad faith (art. 1968) and the prohibition of harassment (art. 1902). A pretext repossession to re-rent a low rent at a higher price can run afoul of all of them — and it is up to the landlord to prove their good faith.
The consequences of a false repossession
People sometimes think the worst that can happen, in a contested repossession, is to "lose" and have to keep your tenant. That falls well short of reality. The consequences of a step found to be in bad faith unfold on three fronts, and each can hurt — all the more so when the media context is already charged, as the report shows.
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 unit — often high, precisely because the old rent was low —, trouble and inconvenience. To this can be added punitive damages, whose function is not to compensate a loss but to sanction the conduct and deter it. As article 1968 of the Civil Code reminds us, these remedies remain available even after the tenant's departure. For a low-rent unit, the irony is cruel : the larger the gap with the market was — hence the stronger the temptation to force the issue —, the greater the compensable harm can be. We quantify the possible scale of these sanctions in our article on the renoviction fine 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 an abusive eviction — especially in a climate where every suspicious repossession can become an example — carries that label for a long time. Future tenants search. So do business partners. In a market where trust is a currency, ending up on the wrong side of a news report leaves a mark that money does not easily buy back. And the Sherbrooke figures show precisely that these cases now attract attention : media risk has never been higher.
3. The media magnifying glass
Repossessions and evictions have become a recurring media subject, precisely because they condense a felt injustice in the middle of a housing crisis. A case that, twenty years ago, would have stayed confined to the tribunal can today become a regional or 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. A statistic like "repossessions have quadrupled in Sherbrooke" is exactly the kind of angle that puts the spotlight on individual cases. 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 repossessions lies a perfectly legitimate objective : to recover a unit frozen far below market in order to bring it back to its fair value. The problem is never the objective ; it is the tool chosen to achieve it. And there is a simple rule to avoid getting it wrong.
The right question : is someone eligible really going to live there ?
- Yes. An eligible relative is really going to move in ? Repossession is the appropriate path. Respect the real reason, the compliant notice, the applicable timelines, and be ready to document your good faith — because it is you who will have to prove it if challenged.
- No. Your real objective is to re-rent, renovate or optimize ? Repossession is not the tool : using it that way is exactly the step the Sherbrooke statistic makes suspicious. The appropriate path is the voluntary agreement.
Cash for keys : the tool made to recover 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 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 the contested repossession is striking. Here, no reason to justify, no burden of proof, no risk of being found in bad faith : since both parties consent freely and sign a clear agreement, there is simply nothing to challenge. 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 reported trend, the reasoning is obvious. The units targeted are, by hypothesis, low-rent units occupied for a long time — hence stuck far below the market. That is exactly what creates the temptation to force the issue. Yet this is exactly the situation where cash for keys shines : offering compensation, recovering the unit 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 appearing in the next news report. To measure this dormant value, our article on below-market rent and the value of the building details the calculation.
Key takeaways
Repossession to occupy ; voluntary agreement to recover and optimize. The landlord aiming at a low rent to bring it back to market should not send a pretext repossession notice : they should make an offer that the tenant is free to accept. Same objective, radically different result — and no risk of adding to the statistic of suspicious repossessions.
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 backfires on 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. And when repossessions multiply as in Sherbrooke, the scrutiny of the tribunals and the media hardens : improvising costs more and more.
Yet recovering a unit cleanly requires specific know-how. You have to assess the real value that bringing it back 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 nasty surprises. Each of these steps, poorly executed, can cause the operation to fail or inflate its cost. This is exactly the subject of our article why go through a pro to recover a unit.
The Opti Loyer approach : pay only for results, zero risk
This is exactly Opti Loyer's line of work. We help landlords recover and optimize their units through voluntary agreements, in compliance with the rules of the Administrative Housing Tribunal. Our model is designed to flip the relationship to 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 result. 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, in a climate where these cases now make the headlines. You only have 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 really going to live in the unit, do a repossession, honestly and by the book. Otherwise, do not divert repossession : let us talk about a voluntary agreement, the tool designed exactly for your objective. Also discover our approach to rent optimization or request your free analysis directly.
The surge in repossession requests in Sherbrooke, Granby and Montreal is more than a statistic : it is a warning sign that says two things at once. On the one hand, the pressure on affordable housing is real and is pushing landlords to look for solutions. On the other, the concentration of these repossessions on low rents is a reminder that a shortcut — the pretext repossession to re-rent at a higher price — saves nothing ; it exposes you to damages, to punitive damages (art. 1968 C.c.Q.) and to a lasting reputational cost. The legal path exists, it is simpler than people think, and it reaches the same objective without gambling your name : the voluntary agreement. Repossession to occupy, agreement to optimize ; and when in doubt, validate the applicable rules or consult before acting, never after.
This content is provided for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. The numerical facts come from a news report ; unsettled trends are reported with cautious language. TAL rules and timelines evolve — verify the applicable terms or consult a legal advisor.
