[1]      Mariam Sheriff filed an application at the Tribunal of the Régie du logement on April 11, 2012 wherein she requests that a deposit of $ 100 which she remitted to the landlord, Mr. Boodoo, be reimbursed.

[2]      She alleges that when she filled out an application to rent a dwelling in a building owned by Mr. Boodoo, the latter requested a deposit of $ 100 and assured her that in the event that her application was refused, the deposit would be refunded in full. However, before she got an answer from Boodoo, she rented an apartment elsewhere. When she subsequently insisted upon the refund, Boodoo refused.

Proof and discussion

[3]      Ms. Sherrif produced a receipt which she received from Boodoo on March 17, 2012.

[4]      The text of the receipt reads as follows :

« Recieved from Mariam Sherrif the sum of One hundred $ 100 deposit for rent applacation on apt. 472 Bedard St. For the month of July or early other. » (sic)

[5]      On that same day, i.e. March 17, 2012, Sherrif filled out an application wherein she undertook to rent the aforementioned apartment pending the landlord’s finding that her credit was satisfactory.

[6]      According to Boodoo, the $ 100 which he received from Sherrif constituted  a legitimate deposit toward the first month’s rent pursuant to Article 1904 of the Civil Code of Quebec :

« 1904. The lessor may not exact any instalment in excess of one month's rent; he may not exact payment of rent in advance for more than the first payment period or, if that period exceeds one month, payment of more than one month's rent.

Nor may he exact any amount of money other than the rent, in the form of a deposit or otherwise, or demand that payment be made by postdated cheque or any other postdated instrument. »

[7]      Mr. Boodoo added that Sherrif asked him to hold the apartment for her pending a favorable response from his credit agency.

[8]      Shortly thereafter, Sherrif  called Boodoo to inform him that she would not be needing the apartment on Bedard street after all.

[9]      By this time however, Boodoo had already paid a $ 20 fee to Equifax, the credit agency.

[10]   Sherrif admits that on March 26, 2012, she signed a lease for an apartment elsewhere and called to advise Boodoo of her decision on that same day.

[11]   The question which the tribunal has been called upon to decide is the following : is Sherrif entitled to a refund of $ 100?

[12]   The application which Sherrif submitted on March 17, 2012 reflected her promise to be bound by a conditional obligation : to sign a lease for the dwelling at 272 Bédard once the condition, i.e. a favorable credit rating, was realised.

[13]   Following Sherrif’s arbitrary decision to sign a lease elsewhere, it was open to Boodoo to sue her for any and all direct and proveable damages (including the $ 20 fee to Equifax)  pursuant to her breach of the contract which she signed on March 17, 2012.

[14]   The fact that he chose not to do so does not imply that he is obliged to refund the $ 100.

[15]   Boodoo, it will be recalled, requested a modest, lawful deposit which he promised to return if Sherrif’s application was rejected. (See Sheriff’s judicial admission to this effect in the application which she filed on April 11, 2012.) At no time did he undertake to refund the money if the applicant found another dwelling which was more to her liking.

[16]   Nor should the text of Article 1375 C.c.Q. be overlooked :

« 1375. The parties shall conduct themselves in good faith both at the time the obligation arises and at the time it is performed or extinguished. »

[17]   Ms. Sherrif’s conduct was inimical to the obligation of good faith which the Civil Code imposes upon all contracting parties and as such, precludes her from claiming the deposit which accompanied her promise to lease a dwelling from Boodoo.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE TRIBUNAL :

[18]   DISMISSES the application.