Bill 593 inserts a single, targeted exception into article 1959 of the Civil Code of Québec: a lessor may not evict a lessee when the purpose of the eviction is to change the dwelling’s destination to short‑term tourist accommodation. The draft text is short and surgical — it adds the phrase “unless the purpose of that change is to convert the dwelling into short‑term tourist accommodation” after the word “destination.”
The policy purpose is straightforward: stop evictions motivated by the conversion of long‑term rental housing into short‑term tourist units. For landlords, the bill removes one legally available ground for repossession; for tenants it creates a new defensible barrier against displacement.
The measure is narrow in form but broad in potential impact because it intersects with municipal regulation of short‑term rentals and with how Quebec’s rental tribunal will assess a landlord’s stated motive.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill amends Civil Code of Québec article 1959 by inserting a carve‑out that prohibits evictions where the landlord’s stated purpose is to convert the dwelling to short‑term tourist accommodation. It does not define “short‑term tourist accommodation,” set proof standards, or create penalties beyond making that purpose a bar to eviction. The Act would come into force on the date of assent.
Who It Affects
Directly affected parties are residential lessees in Quebec, private landlords and property managers seeking to repurpose units for short‑term rentals, short‑term rental platforms and hosts, and the Tribunal administratif du logement (the adjudicator of eviction disputes). Municipal regulators who license or ban tourist rentals will feel the policy’s effects indirectly.
Why It Matters
The amendment targets a concrete driver of housing loss: owner‑initiated evictions to capture short‑term rental revenue. It could preserve long‑term supply in tight markets, but because the bill leaves key terms and enforcement mechanics unspecified, it also invites contested litigation over landlords’ motives and how tribunals prove or disprove conversion intent.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Bill 593 changes one line of Quebec’s Civil Code to make eviction for the purpose of turning a unit into short‑term tourist accommodation impermissible. In practice that means when a landlord brings an eviction application under the part of the Code that permits repossession for a change in destination, the tenant can resist if the landlord’s real motive is to operate the dwelling as a tourist rental.
The text itself is minimal: it adds an exclusion after the word “destination” in article 1959 and declares the law will take effect on the date of assent.
Because the bill does not define “short‑term tourist accommodation,” tribunals and courts will need to supply that operational meaning. Adjudicators will be asked to evaluate landlord intent based on evidence — advertisements, registration on platforms, municipal licence applications, renovations timed to tourist seasons, or sudden mass delistings of long‑term listings.
That shifts the litigation focus from pure statutory form to factual inquiry: a landlord’s stated reason for repossession will be tested against corroborating and circumstantial proof.The bill also leaves other important mechanics untouched. It does not create a new statutory remedy such as damages or mandatory compensation; it merely erects a legal bar to eviction on this ground.
It does not alter other grounds for repossession (for example, repossession for the landlord’s or close family’s use, major renovations, or selling the property) nor does it override municipal licensing regimes that already restrict tourist rentals. Practically, owners who wish to convert units still have options: pursue a different lawful ground for repossession, sell the unit, or attempt to comply with municipal short‑term rental rules — but they lose the specific pathway of evicting tenants because they want to operate the unit as a short‑term tourist accommodation.Finally, because the Act is narrow and textual, much of its real‑world effect will depend on how the Tribunal administratif du logement and courts interpret the undefined terms and how evidence standards develop in eviction hearings.
That is where the policy will live or die: a broad evidentiary approach will make the prohibition meaningful; a narrow one will leave room for circumvention.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill amends article 1959 of the Civil Code of Québec by adding an express prohibition on evicting a tenant when the eviction’s purpose is to convert the dwelling to short‑term tourist accommodation.
The text is a single inserted phrase — it does not define “short‑term tourist accommodation” or list examples (e.g.
platforms, nightly rentals).
The amendment creates a legal bar to eviction on that ground but does not establish a new compensation regime, criminal penalties, or administrative fines for attempted conversions.
Because proof of landlord intent matters but is not specified, parties will rely on circumstantial evidence (advertisements, platform listings, municipal licence filings, renovation plans) in Tribunal proceedings.
The Act’s commencement clause ties its effect to the date of assent; it contains no retroactivity provision, so it operates only for evictions after coming into force.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Prohibits eviction motivated by conversion to tourist rentals
This is the operative change: the bill inserts “unless the purpose of that change is to convert the dwelling into short‑term tourist accommodation” after the word “destination” in article 1959. Mechanically, that removes one statutorily available ground for repossession — eviction premised on changing the dwelling’s destination — if the real motive is to switch to short‑term tourist use. Practically, the Tribunal administratif du logement will now confront disputes about landlord motive in conversion cases.
Comes into force on assent
The Act takes effect on the date of assent; there is no retroactive application. That means pending eviction files will be decided under the legal regime in force at the time of hearing unless the tribunal or courts interpret the new text as applicable to in‑progress disputes — a question that could itself spawn litigation about transitional application.
Bill rationale signals legislative intent but is not operative law
The explanatory notes state the policy aim — limit conversions to short‑term tourist accommodation and protect lessees — and will be used as interpretive context. However, the notes do not expand the statutory language: they do not define key terms or prescribe enforcement mechanisms. That leaves the textual amendment as the only binding change, with tribunals using the notes only as persuasive background when resolving ambiguity about purpose and scope.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on this topic across all five countries.
Explore this topic in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Residential tenants in buildings where owners contemplate conversion — the amendment gives them an explicit legal shield against evictions driven by a plan to run short‑term tourist rentals.
- Neighbourhoods and communities facing rapid turnover — by discouraging eviction‑for‑conversion, the bill may stabilize occupancy and reduce displacement in high‑tourism areas.
- Municipalities pursuing housing‑supply objectives — provincial prohibition on conversion‑based evictions complements local controls on tourist rentals and can help preserve long‑term stock without requiring municipalities to enforce evictions themselves.
Who Bears the Cost
- Private landlords and small owners seeking to shift inventory into the short‑term market — they lose one lawful route to repurpose tenanted dwellings and may see reduced expected returns if alternative conversion paths are costlier.
- Short‑term rental hosts and platforms — the supply of units available for tourist rental may shrink in markets where owners previously relied on eviction to clear tenancies.
- Tribunals and parties to eviction proceedings — the amendment imports motive inquiries into evidentiary hearings, increasing litigation complexity, factual discovery, and adjudicator workload as tribunals assess intent and circumstantial proof.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill pits tenant stability and preservation of long‑term housing against owners’ freedom to repurpose property in response to market demand. Legislators can stop a specific eviction pathway without resolving how to balance property flexibility, market signals from tourism, and the procedural burden of proving motive in eviction hearings — a trade‑off between social housing goals and private‑owner economic rights.
The bill’s brevity is its strength and its principal weakness. By creating a targeted prohibition it directly addresses a known displacement mechanism, but by leaving out definitions, proof rules and remedies it transfers heavy lifting to adjudicators. “Short‑term tourist accommodation” is not defined; tribunals will need to develop the boundary between lawful repossession and prohibited conversion.
That invites inconsistent outcomes across cases and regions until a steady body of precedents emerges.
Another unresolved issue is proof of intent. The amendment turns eviction cases into motive inquiries; landlords can reasonably advance alternative, legitimate grounds for repossession (family occupancy, major renovations, sale).
Absent statutory guidance on what counts as sufficient proof, parties will litigate circumstantial indicators (platform listings, renovation timelines, municipal licence applications), and savvy owners may try to structure conversions to avoid leaving an evidentiary trail. Finally, because the bill does not attach compensatory remedies or administrative enforcement, its practical bite depends on tribunals enforcing the bar robustly — if tribunals set a high threshold for proving conversion intent, the prohibition could be easy to evade.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.