Each month, read about two court decisions to stay on top of the latest news in co-ownership law.
In this judgment, plaintiffs Gilbert Gaudreault and Silvino Pedicelli (“Plaintiffs”) are seeking an order to obtain access to several documents that are part of the books of the Syndicat des copropriétaires les Administrateurs des condos Le Liberté (“Syndicate”).
The Syndicate, for its part, is a counterclaimant seeking recovery of out-of-pocket expenses and damages suffered by the Syndicate, a victim of defamation. Essentially, Plaintiffs, having acted for several years as handymen in the building, in exchange for remuneration, find themselves frustrated by the Syndicate, who ceased using their services in 2016.
The plaintiffs, visibly unhappy with the situation, are multiplying their requests to gain access to the co-ownership’s documents. Their aim was to conduct a fishing expedition to establish the incompetence and/or poor management of the Board of Directors. The Syndicate has been diligent in granting almost all requests over the years. Many of the documents provided are still part of the conclusions sought by Plaintiffs, who clearly care little about what has been transmitted to them.
The real issue at stake is access to documents related to the accounting and financial matters of the Syndicate, in order to allow a proper forensic audit of the Syndicate’s affairs. The Court rules that the co-owners have no right to access accounting documents other than those normally sent with the notice of meeting (and provided for in 1070 C.c.Q.) for general meetings of co-owners.
In order to have the right to consult such documents, the Court states that it must be determined that the co-owner being denied access to the requested additional documents would suffer serious or grave prejudice if his request were denied. Considering the evidence in this dispute, this is not the case. Consequently, the request for injunction is dismissed and qualified as abusive by the Court. A very interesting aspect of this judgment is that the Court, being of the opinion that such abuse deserves to be sanctioned, partially grants the Syndicate’s request, considering the defamatory nature of certain comments made against the Syndicate and its directors in the motion to institute proceedings (allegations of misappropriation of funds).
Such comments were unnecessary given the conclusions sought by Plaintiffs, which were limited to the communication of documents. Adopting the principles of Skiba v. Syndicat de la copropriété 799 Monk, Judge Pinsonneault, j.s.c., concludes that the Syndicate is entitled to compensation of $10,000 for harm to its reputation and $20,000 for extra-judicial costs.
To the best of the undersigned’s knowledge, this decision is the first to deal with a claim arising after the coming into force* of the second version of article 1074.2 of the Civil Code of Québec (“C.C.Q.”).
On May 24, 2020, the seal on the water supply pipe to the bathtub in defendant Colette Cousineau’s (“Defendant”) unit ruptured, causing water damage. The Syndicat des copropriétaires Havre-Wakefield (“The Syndicate”) then undertook the necessary repairs at a cost of over $7,000. Following this work, the Syndicate claimed, through the institution of the count proceedings, the equivalent of its insurance franchise and other costs related to the loss from the Defendant and its insurers.
The Court first established a presumption of fault on the part of the Defendant, according to articles 1074.2 and 1465 of the Civil Code of Québec. The burden of proof having been shifted by the application of the above-mentioned articles, it is now up to the Defendant (and its insurers) to prove that she was not at fault.
From the evidence submitted, it appears that a prior inspection would not have avoided the disaster, qualified as sudden and unpredictable, especially since the bathtub’s plumbing was located in an enclosed space that had to be demolished in order to be accessible. Another relevant factor was that the pipe had a useful life of only fifteen (15) years, whereas, according to a report filed in defense, a pipe of this type should have a useful life of eighty (80) years. The Court therefore concluded that there was no fault on the part of the Defendant, and dismissed the Syndicate’s claim in what appears to be the first application of the second version of article 1074.2 C.c.Q.
In the light of this judgment, we can only note the omission of any reference whatsoever to the declaration of co-ownership, the contract binding the Syndicate and the Defendant, and this, in particular, with regard to the liability of each in such circumstances.
It would have been interesting to have the Court’s opinion on the application of strict liability clauses under the new legal regime created by the new version of article 1074.2 C.c.Q. Such an analysis will most likely be carried out by the courts in the coming months.
*Into force March 17, 2020.