Régie du logement - Irregular and unfair scheduling process

A building manager filed a complaint regarding Régie du logement’s hearing scheduling practices.

The citizen had filed a number of applications to terminate leases for nonpayment of rent, on January and February, 2011, in person at Régie du logement (hereinafter “the Régie”). He was surprised to receive a notice of a hearing for the end of March 2011, for an application filed on February, whereas he was still waiting for such a notice for previous applications filed on January.

This complaint led the Québec Ombudsman to examine

The Régie’s procedure for scheduling hearings in the last quarter of 2010–2011.

The Québec Ombudsman’s investigation showed that

• The Régie schedules hearings by first classifying them in one of five general categories (urgent, nonpayment, fixing and revision, priority, and general cases). Complaints are generally handled in chronological order within each category (except for urgent cases).
• Each year, the main grounds for complaints received, both at the Régie’s complaints office and at the Québec Ombudsman, are the delay in obtaining an initial hearing.
• The waiting times for fixing rents (7.5 months), priority cases (8.6 months), and general cases (17.3 months) are much longer than for other case categories. Practically all complaints over delays relate to the priority and general categories.
• In November 2010, the president of the Régie issued verbal instructions to the effect that the most recent cases (received in the three months prior) categorized as “priority, general, and fixing and revision,” be dealt with on a priority basis, ahead of earlier, similar cases in the hearings schedule. In order to hear as many cases in these categories as possible, the Régie decided to hear fewer nonpayment of rent cases.
• A Régie document dated November 8, 2010, regarding the Régie’s 2009–2013 Strategic Plan targets reads “Also, in order to post good results in view of the 2010 budget appropriations (sic) , it is important to keep in mind that hearings that help reduce the waiting time must be held by February 28, 2011.”
• The president of the Régie admitted having given this “guideline,” thus creating an unfair situation and fast-tracking the processing of 379 files (in his estimation).
• In January and February 2011, it is rather 607 cases (486 general and 121 priority cases) that were processed with unusual speed (in less than three months, compared with average waiting times of 17.3 and 8.6 months respectively for such case in 2009–2010).
• In January and February 2011, the Régie handled three times as many general cases as in each of the previous 12 months. The increase in priority cases was about 50% above the average for the preceding 12 months.
• To deal with more priority and general cases in January and February 2011, the Régie handled fewer nonpayment cases, thus increasing the waiting time in that category. The Régie had to adjust its approach in February 2011 by processing very recent nonpayment cases (less than 30 days old) in March. This is what led to the original complaint.
• The decision to hear fewer nonpayment cases in order to free up the schedule is surprising, since the Régie has always justified giving priority to such applications by referring to its legal obligation under the Civil Code of Québec.
• Individuals whose cases were left pending, often for more than a year, while the Régie dealt with more recent cases three months old and under, were subject to unfair treatment because chronological order was not followed.
• By having their cases dealt with much more quickly, certain people were, unbeknownst to them, given preferential treatment to the detriment of others (tenants and landlords) who had been waiting for longer periods for a hearing before the Régie. This preferential treatment surprised many of those concerned, since they did not expect to see their application handled so quickly. It also explains why four times as many general and 50% more priority cases were postponed during the months of January and February 2011 as compared with the same months in 2010.
• Data on the Régie’s real performance in 2010–2011 is therefore skewed.
• It seems clear to the Québec Ombudsman that reason for the Régie’s accelerated treatment of cases with long waiting times was to improve its own stated performance.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Whereas

The president of the Régie gave verbal instructions to accelerate the processing of the most recent general, priority, and fixing and revision cases (3 months old or less) to the detriment of petitioners who had submitted similar cases earlier;

This instruction was planned specifically to reduce the waiting times reported by the Régie for 2010–2011;

This instruction was given in disregard of the transparency expected from a public body;

This instruction constitutes an iniquity (tending to undermine the trust people must place in all tribunals and specifically, in the Régie);

The Act respecting the Régie du logement has provisions that apply in the event of such a breach.

The Québec Ombudsman has recommended to Ministre des Affaires municipales, des Régions et de l’Occupation du territoire to apply to Conseil de la justice administrative to conduct an inquiry into the situation described in this report.

The Ministry agreed to act on the Québec Ombudsman’s recommendation.

Whereas

• The Régie’s waiting time performance in 2010–2011 has been skewed by the aforementioned instruction;

The Québec Ombudsman has recommended that a notice be added or appended to the Régie’s 2010–2011 annual report to explain to the reader the limitations of declared waiting time data, and that this note also specify the impact of the instruction on reported waiting times, and that this be validated by an auditor from outside the Régie.

The Québec Ombudsman has been assured by the Régie that this unfair schedule management practice ceased on April 1, 2011.

As of September 29, 2011, the Régie’s annual report had still not been tabled.