Montreal mother wins partial repossession of duplex, but says family still faces housing struggle

A Montreal mother who has been living in temporary housing after buying a duplex in Ahuntsic-Cartierville she could not move into has won the right to repossess one of the property’s two units. But she says the partial victory still leaves her family of 10 without the space they need.

The Tribunal administratif du logement (TAL) ruled that Armelle Foka can repossess the main-floor apartment for herself and her family. The current tenants have until Aug. 30 to vacate the unit, allowing Foka to move in Sept. 1.

BACKGROUND: Montreal family living in trailer outside duplex they own while awaiting Quebec housing tribunal ruling

However, the tribunal rejected Foka’s request to repossess the second unit, which she had planned to use for her parents.

“We obtained the repossession for one of the two units, but not the other,” Foka told CityNews. “We’re a large family, and it will be very difficult for 10 of us to live in a five-and-a-half. I bought this property because I wanted enough space for my family.”

As part of the ruling, Foka was also ordered to pay the departing tenants $3,500 in moving expenses.

“That’s a huge amount for me,” she said. “After buying a property like this, I don’t have that kind of cash available. But it’s the law, it’s what was decided, and I’ll comply with it. Even if I have to take out a loan, I’ll do it.”

Foka and her family had previously been living in a trailer parked outside the duplex after leaving their former rental home, believing they would be able to move into the building following the repossession process.

She said they have since moved out of the trailer and are now staying in the basement of a neighbouring home after residents offered them temporary shelter.

“We put mattresses directly on the floor,” she said. “We’ll manage until Sept. 1, but it feels very far away.

“My mom and my dad sleeping on the floor, it is really difficult for me.”

Foka said the timing is particularly difficult as the move coincides with the start of the school year.

“My children are already registered at the neighbourhood school,” she said.

“I don’t think that it is possible for us for them to start at the time.”

The tribunal rejected the repossession of the second unit after questions were raised during the hearing about Foka’s mother, who is in Canada on a five-year super visa rather than permanent residency.

Foka said the apartment was always intended for both of her parents. She told CityNews that only her mother was referenced during the hearing because she was in Canada to attend the proceedings. Her father’s move to Canada has been postponed several times because the family has not had space to accommodate him, despite his super visa and insurance having been in place for months.

“My mother has a five-year super visa and has already been in Canada for three years without leaving,” Foka said. “Five years is a long time. I don’t think it’s fair that someone can live here for that long and still not be able to occupy a home.

“It is possible for a temporary resident to buy a house. Why not for a temporary resident to live in a house? It’s a contradiction.”

For now, Foka says she does not plan to appeal the decision.

“I’m tired,” she said. “I don’t have the energy.”

Melissa Lemieux, a lawyer with the Quebec Landlords Association, said appealing a TAL decision can be costly and, in many cases, landlords are better off filing a new repossession application the following year.

“Unless there’s an error in law or fact, my recommendation is usually to try again next year,” Lemieux said. “An appeal can easily cost more than $10,000.”

Lemieux said she had not reviewed the tribunal’s written decision but found the issue surrounding permanent residency unusual.

“What the city would probably then be questioning at that point is whether or not the mother or the parents are actually going to stay in the apartment, because for the city, they want something to be permanent when it is a repossession,” she said.

The lawyer said if the issue arose unexpectedly during the hearing, requesting a postponement to provide additional evidence demonstrating the parent’s long-term residence in Canada may have strengthened the case.

Lemieux also described the $3,500 compensation order as reasonable, noting the tribunal typically awards tenants reasonable moving expenses based on evidence presented by both parties.

Catherine Lussier, an advocate for tenant rights, says despite the ruling, $3,500 is not a significant amount considering the potential increase in rent tenants may face in the future. She also says having just over a month to find new housing can be challenging.

“In the actual context, this is not a lot of time especially for tenants that are maybe at low-modest income,” said Lussier, of FRAPRU. “We know that there is a crisis of affordability when you’re not able to pay $1,900, $2,000 even $1,500 for having a five-and-a-half.”

Foka says while she’s relieved to finally regain one unit, the outcome still falls short of what she had hoped for.

“My dream was to have enough space for my family,” she said. “That dream won’t come true. We’ll still be living crowded together.”