In a recent judgement of the Court of Québec, Small Claims Division¹, a co-owner who has caused water damage to the building was condemned to pay the syndicate of co-owners the sum of $6,397.00 representing the insurance franchise and legal fees. In turn, the co-owner’s personal insurer was ordered to pay the sum of $5,897 to the co-owner who took legal action against him on warranty.
Dans un jugement récent de la Cour du Québec, Division des Petites Créances1, le Tribunal a jugé que le Syndicat n'a pas manqué à son devoir d'entretenir les parties communes de l'immeuble lorsque des rongeurs ont endommagé un sofa sur la terrasse de deux copropriétaires.
Les faits selon le Tribunal
Les copropriétaires sont copropriétaires d’une unité de copropriété située dans un immeuble dont l'une des parties communes est un atrium fermé qui enferme un jardin intérieur avec des plantes et des arbres tropicaux. La terrasse de leur unité, comme celle des autres copropriétaires, s'ouvre sur cet atrium.
In a recent decision of the Superior Court¹, the Court had to judge whether bodily injury to a co-owner of the building committed the liability of the syndicate of the condominium because of its duty to properly maintain the common portions of the building.
The decision, which includes fourteen pages, deals in detail with the medical evidence of the co-owner, as well as with the counter-proof of the syndicate. However, we will only analyze the Court’s reasoning in relation to the question of whether the syndicate’s liability could be incurred or not.
In a recent judgement of the Court of Quebec, Small Claims Division, which rendered a simultaneous decision on seven separate requests from co-owners against their co-ownership syndicate and its insurance company 1, the Court reaffirmed the principle by which decisions of the syndicate on major work from the contingency funds and the issuance of a special contribution levied, should not be adopted by a majority vote of the assembly of co-owners.
In a recent judgment of the Court of Quebec, Small Claims division¹, the Court reminded a syndicate of co-ownership that, in the absence of an express provision in its declaration of co-ownership, it is not up to the co-owners to pay the cost of replacing their windows, but rather to the syndicate using its contingency fund.