Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Jurisdictional conflict between the Cour du Québec (Small Claims Division) and the Tribunal administratif du logement (TAL) over a claim arising from a residential lease relationship
• Characterization of the tenant’s claim as either a general civil damages action for privacy breaches or a dispute “relative to a bail de logement” within the TAL’s exclusive jurisdiction
• Determination whether Centurion’s collection of personal information forms part of its contractual obligations as landlord under the residential lease
• Application of the Loi sur la protection des renseignements personnels dans le secteur privé (Loi 25 / Loi sur le secteur privé) to the conduct of a landlord collecting tenants’ personal data
• Relevance of existing jurisprudence on how to identify the “essence of the dispute” when jurisdiction is split between specialized tribunals and ordinary courts
• Impact of the CAI’s limited remedial powers (no power to award damages) on routing damage claims to the proper adjudicative forum

Facts of the case

Mr. Joel Munoz-Savoie was a residential tenant who entered into a lease of an apartment in July 2022. The building was later acquired by Centurion Property Associates Inc., which became the new owner and landlord in December 2024. Following this acquisition, Centurion initiated a process to update and gather personal information about its tenants. As part of this process, on 14 December 2024 Centurion sent an email to all tenants requesting that they complete a personal information form and either return it by email or deposit it at the office.
Mr. Munoz-Savoie alleges that, beyond the email communication, Centurion also affixed the completed or blank personal information form directly to his apartment door. He claims that this method of collection and handling of personal information compromised the confidentiality of his data, even though he did not fill out and return the form. On that basis, he seeks $950 in moral damages for stress, insecurity, and violation of his privacy, and $1,275 in punitive damages for what he characterizes as a serious breach of privacy obligations and inadequate response to his complaint.

Nature of the legal relationship and privacy obligations

The court emphasizes that the relationship between the parties is that of landlord and tenant under a residential lease (bail de logement) as defined in the Civil Code of Québec. The personal information request issued by Centurion is viewed as arising directly from its role as landlord after acquiring the building where Mr. Munoz-Savoie resides. In the court’s view, Centurion’s “quest” for personal information must be situated within the contractual framework of the lease relationship, rather than as a standalone, purely extra-contractual privacy dispute.
The judgment notes that the Loi sur la protection des renseignements personnels dans le secteur privé (often associated with “Loi 25”) governs the manner in which any person operating an enterprise may collect, hold, use, and disclose personal information, provided the collection is connected to a serious and legitimate interest. A person who is asked to provide unnecessary personal information may lodge a complaint with the Commission d’accès à l’information (CAI). However, the decision recalls that the CAI, interpreting its constitutive statute, has consistently held that it does not have jurisdiction to award damages as compensation for harm suffered by an individual; its role is essentially supervisory and corrective, not compensatory.
In supporting its approach, the court refers to TAL jurisprudence, including Blanchet c. Roy, where the TAL confirmed that parties to a residential lease remain subject to the Loi sur le secteur privé. A landlord that collects, holds, uses, or communicates personal information remains bound by that statute and may be civilly liable in damages if it commits a contractual fault within the lease relationship.

Jurisdictional framework and the role of the TAL

The core of the judgment is devoted to determining which tribunal has jurisdiction to hear Mr. Munoz-Savoie’s damages claim. Article 537 of the Code of Civil Procedure specifies that the provisions on small claims recovery do not apply to claims resulting from a residential lease. In parallel, the Loi sur le Tribunal administratif du logement (LTAL) grants the Tribunal administratif du logement the competence conferred by that statute and, in article 28, expressly confers on the TAL exclusive jurisdiction over any claim “relative to a bail de logement” when the financial value of the claim does not exceed the monetary jurisdiction of the Cour du Québec.
The judgment explains that this exclusive jurisdiction means no other court, including the Cour du Québec (Small Claims Division), may exercise the mission the legislature has assigned to the TAL. The determining factor is whether there is a residential lease as defined by article 1851 of the Civil Code of Québec and whether the dispute concerns a disagreement between the parties related to that lease. Article 28 LTAL is described as broadly covering all subjects that may arise out of a residential lease, as long as the monetary threshold is not exceeded. That exclusivity also extends to all questions of fact and law that may arise from such disputes.
To determine the competent tribunal, the court adopts the standard approach from jurisprudence: it must identify the “essence” or true nature of the dispute between the parties. The label used by the plaintiff or the legal provisions cited are not decisive; instead, the court must examine the factual matrix and the underlying obligations at issue.

Characterization of the dispute and application to the facts

Although Mr. Munoz-Savoie frames his lawsuit as one based on a breach of privacy and non-compliance with Loi 25, he argues that this allows him to proceed in the Cour du Québec, Small Claims Division, by way of a general civil damages action. Centurion, for its part, contests the court’s competence and argues that only the TAL can adjudicate the dispute because it arises out of Centurion’s obligations as landlord under a residential lease. Centurion also notes that Mr. Munoz-Savoie has already commenced a similar proceeding before the TAL.
The court carefully recasts the dispute. It finds that Centurion’s collection of personal information following its acquisition of the building is directly tied to its new role as landlord and forms part of the ongoing landlord–tenant relationship. When that conduct is challenged as a fault—whether grounded in the Loi sur le secteur privé or in general contractual principles—the alleged wrong remains rooted in the performance of obligations owed under the lease. The “essence” of the dispute is thus not a free-standing privacy matter detached from the lease, but a claim that the landlord committed a contractual fault in the management of tenant information arising out of the residential lease.
On this characterization, the claim is “relative to a bail de logement” within the meaning of article 28 LTAL. Since the amount claimed is within the monetary limit of the Cour du Québec’s jurisdiction, article 28 LTAL allocates exclusive competence to the TAL. As a result, the Cour du Québec’s Small Claims Division cannot hear the claim, regardless of the fact that the plaintiff relies on privacy legislation and seeks both moral and punitive damages.

Policy terms or contractual clauses at issue

The decision does not revolve around an insurance policy or detailed policy wording; there is no discussion of insurance clauses or other written policy terms. Instead, the focus is on statutory provisions and the general contractual obligations flowing from the residential lease. The relevant “terms” are therefore legislative and structural rather than clauses of a private policy document.
The judgment highlights three principal instruments: the Code de procédure civile (article 537), which excludes lease-based claims from the small claims regime; the Loi sur le Tribunal administratif du logement and particularly article 28, which grants the TAL exclusive jurisdiction over lease-related disputes within the specified monetary threshold; and the Loi sur la protection des renseignements personnels dans le secteur privé, which regulates how businesses, including landlords, may collect and handle personal information but does not itself confer on the CAI the power to award damages. The court weaves these legal sources together to classify both the relationship and the nature of the claim, which then drives the jurisdictional result.

Outcome and implications of the ruling

The judgment is explicitly limited to the preliminary issue of jurisdiction. The court states that it is not ruling on the merits of Mr. Munoz-Savoie’s allegations, nor on whether Centurion actually committed a privacy or contractual fault, nor on whether damages are warranted. Its sole task is to decide whether the Cour du Québec, Small Claims Division, is the appropriate forum to hear the case.
Having determined that the dispute’s essence is a landlord–tenant conflict arising from the performance of the residential lease, and that article 28 LTAL assigns exclusive jurisdiction over such lease-related matters to the TAL, the court concludes that it lacks the necessary jurisdiction. It therefore formally declines competence and, as a consequence, does not rule on the plaintiff’s pending motion for disclosure and communication of documents. The matter must instead be pursued, if at all, before the TAL, where a similar proceeding is already said to be pending.
In the result, Centurion Property Associates Inc., as the party challenging the court’s jurisdiction, emerges as the successful party in this procedural decision. No damages, costs, or other monetary awards are granted by the Cour du Québec: the court simply declines jurisdiction “sans frais,” and thus no specific amount is ordered in favor of any party and the total monetary award cannot be determined from this judgment alone.