Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Scope of judicial review over Tribunal administratif du Québec (TAQ) decisions confirming a social assistance overpayment based on alleged undeclared marital cohabitation.
• Assessment of whether procedural fairness and natural justice were breached by allowing a neighbour to testify by telephone shortly after the COVID-19 emergency.
• Reliance on a written statement from the building concierge, and whether admitting this hearsay evidence without live testimony violated the right to be heard and to cross-examine.
• Allocation of responsibility between the Ministry and the claimant for summoning witnesses whose written statements form part of the administrative file.
• Evidentiary weight given to multiple documentary and testimonial sources indicating long-term cohabitation and mutual support, versus the claimant’s version that he lived with his mother.
• Application of correctness and reasonableness standards under Vavilov to confirm that TAQ’s factual findings and treatment of evidence were justified, intelligible and procedurally fair.

Facts and background

Ignace Lomumba received last-resort financial assistance as a social assistance recipient in Québec. Throughout the benefit period in question, he declared to the Ministère de l’Emploi et de la Solidarité sociale (MESS) that he was single and reported an address different from that of his long-term partner, Renelle Coderre Franc-Guimon. The status of being single meant that his benefits were calculated as if he had no cohabiting spouse contributing to household resources.
In 2019, MESS obtained Mr. Lomumba’s 2018 tax return, where he declared that he was the spouse of Ms. Coderre Franc-Guimon. This contradicted the information he had given to MESS, where he claimed to be célibataire. This discrepancy triggered a more extensive administrative investigation into his true living arrangements and marital status.
The investigation assembled a wide range of material indicating that Mr. Lomumba and Ms. Coderre Franc-Guimon had been living together in a marital-type relationship on Boulevard A in Ville Saint-Laurent for many years. Various bills in Mr. Lomumba’s name bore Ms. Coderre Franc-Guimon’s address; he himself stated that he stayed at her home four days a week since 2017 and had been sleeping there for about twenty years. The concierge of the building stated that he had resided there since at least 2011, and Québec’s automobile insurance authority (SAAQ) records showed that he had been declaring that address since February 2009. Four neighbours of his mother also confirmed that he did not in fact live with her during the period at issue.
In addition, the evidence showed mutual financial and personal support characteristic of a conjugal relationship. On 5 December 2019, Mr. Lomumba signed a sworn declaration stating that Ms. Coderre Franc-Guimon had been meeting all of the couple’s needs since January 2018. The couple’s relationship was also described as one of “commune renommée” in the community for the relevant period, reinforcing the picture of a publicly known, long-term cohabiting partnership.

Administrative decisions and overpayment assessment

Based on the investigation, on 11 September 2020 MESS issued two decisions covering two specific benefit periods. It concluded that a marital-type cohabitation existed during those times and that Mr. Lomumba had falsely declared his status. Because social assistance entitlement is calculated differently when a claimant has a spouse with whom they share resources, the Ministry determined that he had received last-resort financial assistance to which he was not entitled. The total overpayment was assessed at 67,651.10 CAD, an amount the Ministry sought to recover.
Mr. Lomumba requested internal review of these decisions. In doing so, he admitted that he had been living in a marital relationship with Ms. Coderre Franc-Guimon since March 2018, but he disputed the broader timeline and implications drawn by the Ministry. On 6 January 2018 (as reported in the judgment, despite the chronological oddity), MESS maintained its two initial decisions. This internal confirmation led Mr. Lomumba to contest the matter before the Tribunal administratif du Québec (TAQ).

First TAQ decision (TAQ-1): findings on credibility and cohabitation

In its 5 December 2022 decision (TAQ-1), the Tribunal administratif du Québec confirmed the Ministry’s position. It undertook a detailed review of the documentary and testimonial record and found the evidence “fort convaincante” on the existence of a long-standing conjugal relationship and shared residence.
TAQ-1 placed particular emphasis on credibility. It noted that Mr. Lomumba’s sworn declaration that Ms. Coderre Franc-Guimon had provided for all of the couple’s needs since January 2018 sat uneasily with his benefit declarations as a single person. The tribunal underlined numerous anomalies, evasions, hesitations and shifting explanations in his testimony, describing these traits as part of his habitual way of operating and finding that they undermined the reliability and good faith of his account. His good faith toward the authorities was said to be “sérieusement remise en question,” affecting both the weight and credibility of his testimony.
The tribunal also viewed the partner’s evidence with skepticism. While she testified to downplay elements linking Mr. Lomumba to her address and to explain away references to him on her passport and documents, TAQ-1 rejected these explanations as selective and implausible. For example, it did not accept that designating him as the emergency contact on her passport was a mere convenience; instead, it saw this designation as a significant gesture of personal trust that typically occurs between cohabiting partners.
On the documentary side, TAQ-1 gave important weight to the administrative file, including a written declaration by the building concierge who had worked at the condo building since 2011. The concierge stated that Mr. Lomumba had cohabited with Ms. Coderre Franc-Guimon since that time and that he handled follow-up on various repairs for the unit. TAQ-1 considered this declaration as a preponderant demonstration, not only of cohabitation but also of mutual support and public reputation as a couple, when read in conjunction with the many other elements of proof.
Taken together, these elements led TAQ-1 to confirm that Mr. Lomumba had been living in a conjugal relationship and had misrepresented his status and residence in his benefit claims, thereby justifying MESS’s overpayment assessment of 67,651.10 CAD.

Second TAQ decision (TAQ-2): review of procedural fairness and evidentiary treatment

Following TAQ-1, Mr. Lomumba brought a further application before TAQ, raising issues such as the fairness of the hearing procedure, the use of telephone testimony, the admission of the concierge’s written statement, and the allocation of responsibility to summon witnesses. TAQ-2, in its 16 October 2024 decision, dismissed these challenges and upheld TAQ-1.
TAQ-2 examined whether there were any fundamental defects (vices de fond) in the first decision, particularly concerning procedural fairness and the tribunal’s management of the evidence. It concluded that there were none. It found that the hearing had been conducted fairly, that the rules of natural justice were respected, and that the evidence had been weighed rationally. The decision was described by the Superior Court as “bien motivée, intelligible et rationnelle,” confirming that TAQ-2 had adequately explained why TAQ-1’s approach to witness evidence and written statements fell within its procedural discretion.

Superior Court judicial review: standards of review and legal framework

Before the Superior Court of Québec, Mr. Lomumba applied for judicial review of both TAQ-1 and TAQ-2. He argued that TAQ-1 had violated principles of natural justice—especially his right to be heard and to cross-examine witnesses—and that TAQ-2’s confirmation of TAQ-1 was unreasonable.
The Superior Court first addressed the applicable standards of review under the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Vavilov. For issues tied directly to procedural fairness—such as the right to be heard and to cross-examine—the court applied the standard of correctness. For other aspects of the challenge, including the assessment of evidence and the substantive reasonableness of TAQ’s conclusions, it applied the reasonableness standard.
The judgment also situated the case within the broader framework of the Loi sur la justice administrative (LJA). That statute affirms the specific nature of administrative justice and seeks to ensure quality, timeliness and accessibility while respecting fundamental rights. It expressly grants bodies like TAQ substantial flexibility in conducting hearings and managing evidence, including mastery over the audience’s conduct and the power to decide admissibility, provided that evidence obtained in a manner that undermines fundamental rights is rejected.
Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Baker, the Superior Court reiterated that procedural fairness is context-specific. The court pointed to factors such as the nature of the decision, the legislative scheme, the importance of the decision for those affected, legitimate expectations about process, and the tribunal’s procedural choices. Within that framework, TAQ’s flexible approach to evidence—including telephone testimony and use of the administrative record—was not inherently inconsistent with fairness.

Telephone testimony and the right to be heard

One of Mr. Lomumba’s central objections concerned the testimony of France Lalancette, a neighbour of his mother. The hearing took place on 12 July 2022, shortly after Québec had emerged from the COVID-19 state of emergency. Ms. Lalancette, who had been assigned by the Ministry, was permitted by TAQ-1 to testify by telephone due to the recent pandemic context and delays in serving her with a subpoena. Her evidence was relevant because the Ministry wished to rebut Mr. Lomumba’s claim that he resided with his mother during the disputed period.
The Superior Court observed that Ms. Lalancette had previously signed a written declaration included in the Ministry’s investigation file and that this declaration had been made available to Mr. Lomumba well before the hearing. As a result, her oral evidence was not of a type that could reasonably surprise him. After deliberation, TAQ-1 allowed the telephone testimony to avoid an adjournment and to advance the truth-seeking function of the hearing. The testimony lasted about thirty minutes, including seventeen minutes of cross-examination by Mr. Lomumba’s counsel.
The court acknowledged that there had been minor communication issues during the call, but found that these brief interruptions did not impair the parties’ ability to question the witness or to hear her answers. At the end of the cross-examination, counsel indicated that he had no further questions and the parties thanked the witness, with no objection raised at that time.
The Superior Court held that authorizing telephone testimony fell squarely within TAQ’s procedural powers and was not, in itself, contrary to procedural fairness. If Mr. Lomumba believed that his right to cross-examine had been compromised, he should have raised the issue immediately at the hearing. Raising it later in judicial review, after participating in the process without objection, could not retroactively transform the procedure into a breach of natural justice. The court also noted that Ms. Lalancette’s evidence was secondary and not central, pointing out that TAQ-1 had not even cited her testimony in its written decision.

Use of the concierge’s written declaration and hearsay

The second key procedural issue was TAQ-1’s reliance on the concierge’s written statement, which formed part of the administrative file. That declaration stated that since the concierge began working at the condo building in 2011, he had observed that Mr. Lomumba cohabited with Ms. Coderre Franc-Guimon and that he dealt with him regarding repairs for the unit.
The Superior Court emphasized that, in TAQ proceedings, it is common and legitimate to take into account written statements contained in the administrative record. By law, the citizen must receive the full administrative file before the hearing, and TAQ may consider those documents, provided parties have a fair opportunity to respond. The court cited prior case law confirming that TAQ members are permitted to base their decisions on such file materials, as long as they were disclosed in advance, without thereby denying parties the right to be heard.
The court rejected the notion that relying on written, potentially hearsay declarations inherently discredits the administration of justice in an administrative setting. To the contrary, the judgment suggested that refusing to consider such evidence could be more harmful to the justice system, especially in social and regulatory contexts where written declarations often form an essential part of the documentary record.
In this case, the concierge had been subpoenaed by the Ministry but did not appear at the hearing. TAQ-1 nevertheless chose to rely on his written declaration, pointing out that both Mr. Lomumba and his partner had long known of its existence and had elected not to summon him themselves. TAQ-1 characterized the declaration as a preponderant demonstration of cohabitation and mutual support, but crucially it did so in combination with many other items of proof that all pointed to the same conclusion. The Superior Court held that it was wrong to isolate the phrase describing the declaration as “prépondérante” and to claim that it was the sole decisive factor. Read fairly, TAQ-1 used the declaration as corroboration within a rich evidentiary mosaic that already undermined the claimant’s version of events.

Responsibility for summoning witnesses

Mr. Lomumba further argued that TAQ-1 had unfairly placed on him the burden of summoning witnesses who, he claimed, belonged to the Ministry’s case—particularly the concierge. The Superior Court rejected this argument as unfounded.
In an administrative hearing where written declarations from third parties are part of the disclosed file, each party bears responsibility for summoning any witness it considers essential to its case or to cross-examination. Since TAQ may, in principle, rely on such written statements, a claimant who has had the statement for years cannot later complain that the tribunal considered it when he chose not to secure the author’s attendance.
The court also underscored that in this specific instance, the Ministry had in fact subpoenaed the concierge, but he failed to appear. If Mr. Lomumba believed that his in-person testimony was indispensable, he had to clearly insist at the hearing that the matter be adjourned or that further steps be taken to compel attendance. By not doing so, he effectively acquiesced in the tribunal’s decision to proceed on the record and could not subsequently claim a breach of natural justice.

Judicial assessment of TAQ’s treatment of evidence

The Superior Court addressed one further criticism: that TAQ-1 had supposedly ignored the testimony of Mr. Lomumba’s brother, who supported the claim that he resided with his mother during the relevant period. The court held that a decision-maker is not required to discuss every single piece of testimony, especially where overall credibility findings and the main evidentiary lines are clearly addressed.
Given the extensive evidence supporting cohabitation with Ms. Coderre Franc-Guimon—including official records, sworn declarations, neighbours’ statements and the couple’s own admissions—the court found that TAQ-1’s interpretation of the facts could not be described as unreasonable. The tribunal’s conclusion that no evidence from the claimant met the required standard to establish residence with his mother was within its fact-finding discretion.

Outcome and financial consequences

After reviewing the procedural fairness arguments under the correctness standard and the substantive findings under the reasonableness standard, the Superior Court held that both TAQ-1 and TAQ-2 were legally sound. It confirmed that TAQ had acted within the flexible procedural framework set by the Loi sur la justice administrative, had respected the core requirements of natural justice, and had provided reasoned, intelligible decisions.
As a result, the Superior Court dismissed Mr. Lomumba’s application for judicial review and upheld the administrative conclusions that he had improperly received last-resort financial assistance by misrepresenting his marital status and residence. The successful parties in this litigation are the Tribunal administratif du Québec (as respondent) and, substantively, the Québec government authorities whose overpayment decision was maintained. The court left intact the Ministry’s claim for an overpayment totalling 67,651.10 CAD and ordered legal costs (frais de justice) against Mr. Lomumba, although the judgment does not specify the exact amount of those costs, which are determined under the applicable tariff rather than stated as a fixed sum in the decision.