Advantages Condo

Claim by the syndicate and four co-owners against the building promoter – action for damages to cover the cost of modernizing building's freight elevator for cars and access to garage – question of whether the building promoter may be obliged to modernize an ageing common portion existing at the time of the conversion to divided co-ownership and sale of the building to co-owners – Syndicate's action for damages granted in part, but without full replacement of the elevator.

An owner of a condo can choose to rent his residence to a tenant and the two of them will sign a housing lease to this end. The co-owner enjoys his property then by renting it to another person to collect renting revenue. However, the declaration of co-ownership aiming at the building can contain restrictions as far as the rights of the co-owners are concerned to keep one or two domestic animals inside its privative portions, which take the form of a regulation of a building governing the conditions of enjoyment of the privative portions by the co-owner according to article 1054 of the Civil code of Quebec (C.c.Q.)

Appeal of a judgement of first instance - Recourse of a co-owner to cancel a regulation of a building on renting - Power of the syndicate to restrict the exercise of the right of a co-owner to rent his fraction - Question of commercial nature about renting activities - Justification of the restriction of the rights of the co-owners because of the destination of the building

•          In first instance, the co-owner has tried, without success, to have canceled a regulation, adopted                 by the syndicate, which limits his right to rent his apartments and he appeals.

On December 2, 2010, Bill No.122, titled the Act amending the Loi sur le bâtiment, relating to the modernization of building safety requirements was sanctioned by the National Assembly. According to the Government, these modifications will make it possible for the Régie du bâtiment to modernize the rules enacted under the terms of this law, and more specifically those relating to building safety and pressurized apparatii.

Complaint of a co-owner against the syndicate - electricity expenditure – common portions for restricted use - concept of contribution according to the right of user - interpretation of article 1064 of the C.c.Q. - category of the duties connected to the common portions for restricted use - complaint by the co-owner of the incurred legal expenses - allegation of inertia with regard to the administrators

When an annual or special general meeting of the syndicate of co-ownership is convened, the majority of the co-owners will choose to assist to it to exert their right to speak and to vote on the questions within the competence of the assembly of the co-owners. However, it is possible that a co-owner cannot be present for various reasons. In such a case, any co-owner can be represented at the assembly by the person of his choice, who will exert all the rights of the co-owner in the same way as the co-owner if he were present. It concerns a mandate under article 2130 of the C.c.Q.:

The syndicate of the co-owners, applicant, manages the common portions of a building built and sold by the defendant and it claims from her an indemnity for the reason that she would not have carried out completely and correctly her obligations. The defendant disputes the request and she claims 2.000$ by way of counterclaim to compensate for the “incurred trouble - waste of time - expenditure”.

The water tank of the toilet of the co-owner is fissured and causes water damage in five units of the building, including the one of the defendant co-owner. The syndicate submits a complaint to its insurer, who compensates it for the amount of the damage caused after having deduced an amount of 2500$ representing the franchise payable by the syndicate under the terms of its insurance policy. The defendant co- owner and her insurer plead that she did not commit any fault and that it is all about a manufacturing defect of the tank.

The applicant, the Syndicate of co-owners of Mesnil, claims from the co-owners defendants, the payment of the sum of 596,06$ representing the lawyers’ fees which it had to spend in order to lead them to respect the declaration of co-ownership relative to the wooden floor coatings and the access by its representatives to their privative portions within the framework of the achievement of its syndicate of co-ownership responsibilities.