CORPIQ denounces housing regulations considered illegal

Not only does CORPIQ consider these regulations harmful to plex owners, but it also argues that they are legally questionable, as they conflict with rights explicitly recognized under the Civil Code of Québec, which specifically provides for the right to substantially enlarge and/or subdivide dwelling units. CORPIQ also points to the Québec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, arguing that the regulations effectively force families out of their own properties by preventing them from housing their children or parents appropriately.

As a first step, CORPIQ is calling on the appropriate authorities to review the matter, as the entire regulatory process was carried out with a lack of transparency, and certain actions suggest that an investigation may be warranted. In particular, questions remain as to why the legislation varies significantly from one borough to another and on what basis these decisions were made.

CORPIQ also challenges the highly coordinated manner in which the boroughs quickly adopted these regulations through closed-door borough council meetings, without informing the landlords most directly affected.

“In the middle of a pandemic, these regulations slipped under the radar. The boroughs acted very quickly, and even today, many plex owners seem unaware that they have been blindsided,” said Benoit Ste-Marie, Executive Director of CORPIQ.

Regulations that run counter to the well-being of Montreal families

The popularity of plexes in Montreal is not driven by profitability. For more than a decade, this type of property has offered little financial return given low rental revenues and high acquisition costs. However, owning a plex traditionally allowed growing families to expand their living space as their needs evolved.

“The very concept of a plex implies flexibility for the landlord. Without that flexibility, the trend of families choosing the suburbs will only accelerate,” said Benoit Ste-Marie.

CORPIQ argues that the most disappointing aspect is that, in the midst of a pandemic, these regulations create obstacles for those wishing to care for aging parents.

“The idea of caring for one's parents under the same roof, as is common in many European countries, should be strongly encouraged—not discouraged,” added Mr. Ste-Marie.

Preserving the housing stock?

CORPIQ considers this a false justification. Boroughs have repeatedly claimed that the regulations are intended to address the housing crisis. However, housing a family instead of a tenant should not, mathematically speaking, worsen the situation. In fact, it may have the opposite effect.

One out of every two housing units is occupied by a single person. Therefore, if a unit is reclaimed to accommodate two children, the result is twofold: a family remains in Montreal, and the children stay in their community. In practical terms, this could potentially house more people overall.

“An administration that, on one hand, hinders the construction of new housing by imposing business models that are nearly impossible to make viable, such as the widely criticized 20-20-20 policy, and then complains about a housing shortage on the other hand, is being inconsistent,” concluded the Executive Director of CORPIQ.