Advantages Condo

The following question is always asked regularly to us by members of the Boards of Directors of co-ownerships and by co-owners: “There is no one who would want to sit on the Board, can’t we then not just entrust everything to a manager and let him deal with all of it?”
Our answer is no.

A co-ownership can be formed from as few as two residential units, regardless of the size of the condo. The law provides that the day-to-day management of the syndicate may be entrusted to a manager, elected or not, among its co-owners. This manager, who acts as administrator of the property of others, will be charged with basic administrative tasks.¹ In most cases, the deed of co-ownership grants authority to the Board of Directors to procure the services of a manager and establish the amount of his fees.

In a recent judgement of the Court of Québec, Small Claims division 1, the Court held that a co-owner of a building had not proved that the plant-sprinkling water from his neighbour, three floors up, was responsible for the deterioration of the painted surfaces of his balcony. The syndicate of co-ownership, called in as warranty by the prosecuted co-owner is not responsible either, according to the Court.

The claims of the parties in the Court
The plaintiff and the defendant own condominiums located respectively on the 24th and 27th floors of the building. The plaintiff accuses the defendant of having badly maintained the balcony of his condominium, thereby causing the flow of wastewater. The applicant therefore claims from him $4,300 in compensation for water damage to his balcony. The defendant denies all responsibility and involves the syndicate of co-owners in the building as a co-defendant, citing additionally that it is the syndicate that is responsible for the maintenance of the common portions for restricted use of the building.

In a recent judgement of the Court of Québec, Small Claims Division 1, the Court dismissed the claim for damages of a co-owner against the syndicate of co-owners, and condemns the co-owner to pay all legal costs incurred by the syndicate.

The claims of the parties
In his legal action, the co-owner seeks to obtain a settlement of $11,036.60 from his syndicate of co-ownership. This claim consists of: $4,038.60 as a “refund” of the purchase price of the common portions of the co-ownership; $5,000 for trouble and inconvenience including bank charges, legal fees, lost time, etc.; $1,038 for expungement proceedings to legal mortgages he considers to have been made illegally; $960.00 for co-ownership fees he had to pay.

In a recent judgement of the Court of Québec, Small Claims Division¹, a co-owner who put up a “For Rent” sign for his condo unit, while such posting is prohibited by the deed of co-ownership, was sentenced by the Court to pay the legal costs incurred by the syndicate of co-ownership.

The parties and their claims
The syndicate of co-ownership of the building claims, from one of the building’s co-owners, the sum of $575.56 as reimbursement for legal fees incurred to send him a notice. The syndicate argues before the Court that the “For Rent” poster displayed by the co-owner in his privative portion is prohibited by the deed of co-ownership.

In a recent judgement of the Court of Québec, Small Claims Division i, the claim for damages by a former co-owner against the syndicate of co-owners for damages for hidden defects was rejected by the Court. This former co-owner claimed from her former syndicate of co-owners the amount for which she was sentenced to pay the buyers of her unit. The latter asked her for their share of a special contribution paid for upgrading non-compliant unit fireplaces.

The claims of the parties
The former co-owner claims from her former co-ownership syndicate with vertical effect, as well as from the syndicate with horizontal effect of which the vertical syndicate is part, the amount of $4,588.82, amount paid to the buyers of her unit following a legal action for hidden defects in the unit.

An important aspect of the insurance of a divided co-ownership is the fact that the legislator has seen fit to entrust a third party with managing the reconstruction of the building, and the indemnity paid by the insurer of the syndicate in the event of a major disaster.

Indeed, Section 1075 of the Civil Code of Québec provides that:

“1075. The indemnity owing to the syndicate following a substantial loss is, notwithstanding article 2494, paid to the trustee appointed in the act constituting the co-ownership or, where none has been appointed, designated by the syndicate. The indemnity shall be used to repair or rebuild the immovable, unless the syndicate decides to terminate the co-ownership, in which case the trustee, after determining each co-owner's share of the indemnity according to the relative value of his fraction, pays the prior and hypothecary creditors out of that share according to the rules in article 2497. For each of the co-owners, he remits the balance of the indemnity to the liquidator of the syndicate with his report.”

Many co-owners hear about “vertical” versus so-called “horizontal” or “initial” co-ownerships and wonder about the difference between the two of them. In fact, the two are interrelated, and here’s how.

A method of developing a real-estate project in co-ownership
The terms vertical co-ownership and horizontal or initial co-ownership are used to describe the different levels of co-ownership when the real-estate promoter wishes to develop and build his project in phases, using the deeds method known as “concomitant.”

Do not forget that marriage provides some protection to spouses, whether it is at the time of divorce or death. Let us also remember that the de facto partner, i.e. the one with whom we live, whether it is for one year or thirty years, does not enjoy the same protection established by law. If one desires to be protected there must be documents accordingly. Although the married spouse or the de facto partner does not enjoy full protection in case of death, especially if the couple has adolescent children together, one should however not neglect the legal consequences of marriage or a de facto partnership: simply to live separately, even if it has been for many years, does not change such legal status.

In a recent judgement from the Quebec Court, Small Claims Division¹, a co-owner was sentenced by the Court to pay damages with interest to the syndicate of co-ownership for damages caused by an improper water pipe. The co-owner alleges that it was not he who had installed this improper pipe but rather the one he bought the condo from. Sued for collateral by the current co-owner the former co-owner was ordered to pay damages plus interest in the same amount to the current co-owner. However, the current co-owner sues the syndicate to obtain reimbursement of his legal costs and compensation for loss of time, discomfort and inconvenience.

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.


The context
The defendant co-owner disputes the claim of the syndicate of co-ownership, and in turn took legal action against his personal insurance company in this case by calling it as collateral. The co-owner claims to be secured by this company at the time of the mishap for the complaint directed against him by the syndicate of co-ownership.
However, at the hearing, no representative of the co-owner’s insurance company showed up.