A Judicial Decision Echoing Tensions Between Public Property Rights and Social Mission

The Context

Since 2000, the building has been occupied by SA, a pivotal neighborhood organization that groups and houses several community partners offering essential services: food bank, meals on wheels for seniors, support for vulnerable families, accompaniment for autistic persons, housing assistance, etc.

The last formal lease expired in 2018. Since then, SA and its partners have continued to occupy the premises without a new written lease, at a very low rent ($4.50/sq. ft. for 19,000 sq. ft.). The CSSM, citing an increase in needs for adult French language training, wishes to reallocate the building for school purposes. It therefore sent a termination notice in November 2024 and, failing to reach an agreement, requested in January 2025 the issuance of an interlocutory injunction for immediate eviction.

Legal Analysis

Three criteria must be met for an interlocutory injunction to be granted (RJR – MacDonald, [1994] 1 SCR 311; HRM Projet Children, 2020 QCCA 1123):

1. A strong appearance of right: Yes. The CSSM demonstrates that the lease has ended, that current occupation is tolerated (art. 1853 C.C.Q.), and that the lease was duly terminated (art. 1882 C.C.Q.).
2. Serious or irreparable harm: Yes. The CSSM argues that maintaining this occupation prevents the execution of its educational mission and risks the continuity of French language courses, especially due to the age of the William-Hingston complex.
3. Balance of convenience: No. This is where the Court rejects the request.

Judge Yiannakis' Reasoning

Despite the apparent validity of the CSSM's right, the Tribunal concludes that the defendants' harm is more serious, more immediate, and more certain:

• 25,000 people would lose access to indispensable community services;
• 2,000 households would be deprived of a food bank;
• 1,650 vulnerable seniors would no longer have access to meals on wheels;
• 500 families would no longer have social or clothing support;
• 200 autistic adults would lose their autonomy program.

In comparison, the CSSM project is still embryonic:

• No architectural plans;
• No permit applications;
• No contractors hired;
• No solution for the 11 classes that cannot be relocated to Peltrie.

The tribunal also notes that the elementary school located in the William-Hingston complex is not being evacuated, suggesting that repairs could be made there without interrupting all services.

Public Interest: Two Social Missions, a Delicate Arbitration

Both parties invoke legitimate public interests: free education on one side (art. 40, Quebec Charter), social solidarity and the fight against poverty on the other.

But here, the determining factor is not the intrinsic value of the mission, but the urgent and irreversible nature of the consequences. As the judge emphasizes:

"Issuing the requested injunction would necessarily result in an immediate end to the services offered by the community center [...], while the refusal to grant the requested remedy will not immediately hinder the CSSM's schooling mission."

A Transitional Decision, Not the End of the Game

It is important to emphasize that this decision does not resolve the merits of the dispute. The CSSM could still obtain eviction in the upcoming trial. But for now, the Court refuses to act in urgency to the detriment of thousands of vulnerable people.

Personal Reflections

This judgment is an essential reminder that law does not evolve in a vacuum. It constantly interacts with social, economic, and human reality. Even if a property right is established, its exercise is not absolute. Social context also weighs in the balance.

It also poses a real political question: Who is responsible for providing relocation mechanisms for community organizations occupying surplus public buildings? And above all, who is tasked with prioritizing between education and social solidarity? Organizations such as Centraide must juggle this reality by attempting to create links and bridges between different stakeholders, in addition to offering financial aid to organizations responding to current societal issues. The result of these efforts can thus mitigate these problems and avoid resorting to the courts which, as seen in this decision, must decide beyond a purely legal solution.

And, as Judge Yiannakis concludes:

"It is not for the judiciary to take on the difficult task of identifying a ranking of societal priorities. This difficult task belongs to elected officials."