Source: Shutterstock

Enlarge

Source: Shutterstock

A tenant requested the annulment of a decision of the administrative housing court, because it had been taken in his absence. And to justify this absence, the tenant explained that he had refused to wear the mask required to enter the courtroom.

Following this hearing held on April 20, the Administrative Court of Housing had decided the termination of the lease and the eviction of the tenant, on the grounds that the latter had not paid the rents for the months of February, March and April.

Only the landlord was present at the hearing on April 20, the tenant not having been able to appear: he had refused to wear a mask to access the court.

The tenant requested the retraction of the decision, arguing that he had not been able to defend himself, given his absence at the hearing. The administrative judge Marc Lavigne rejected this request.

“In terms of withdrawal, a fair balance must be found between two conflicting principles: the stability of judgments and the fundamental audi alteram partem rule which requires that everyone has the right to be heard in court,” writes the administrative judge in his decision taken on June 25 to uphold the judgment given in April.

“In the case under study, it would go against the stability of judgments and the sound administration of justice to endorse the negligence of the tenant and allow him to resume the whole process, when he owes five months’ rent. ยป, Concludes Judge Marc Lavigne, rejecting the request for retraction.