Advantages Condo

In a recent decision of the Court of Quebec, a small claims division¹, a co-owner of a syndicate of co-ownership saw the Court dismiss her claim for damages for loss of income and expenses caused by her fall on the snowy and icy ground of the condominium.

The facts

The co-owner claims from the syndicate and the snow removal firm damage amounting to $7,000. The syndicate and the snow removal firm dispute this amount in addition to saying that they have committed no fault.

The co-owner who, in the opinion of the Court, was wearing proper footwear for the conditions, was walking on a private road of the co-ownership to go to the recycling bin, when she fell on ice covered with a thin layer of snow. Because of this fall she suffered a broken wrist.

According to the syndicate and the snow removal firm the latter had the contractual obligation to clear snow from the driving lanes of the condominium and to spread there abrasive materials “as needed”. Both the syndicate and the snow removal firm agreed that the term “as needed” meant in this case: “at the request of the property manager”.

An employee from the syndicate had to take care of snow removal on a smaller scale, i.e. on walkways, stairs and exterior steps.

According to the Court the evidence clearly demonstrates that the snow removal firm, as well as the employee and the manager, did a meticulous and impeccable job at this level by using appropriate equipment.

Analysis and Decision of the Court

The Court reminds the parties in its judgment that the one claiming damages must prove three important elements: (1) that the person has committed an offence; (2) the existence of a damage caused; (3) that the damage was caused by this fault.

In the circumstances it is clear to the Court that the co-owner has suffered damages due to her fall, but the question arises as to what is the value of the damage, and whether the syndicate and the snow removal firm have made a mistake?

The Court reminds that only the occurrence of a fall on ice does not imply the existence of a fault². Therefore the person who claims damages for this reason must demonstrate a fault (which is not always easy to do in the context of a Quebec winter) and it is not up to the defendant to prove that she has committed no fault.

The Court concludes that the obligations of the syndicate and the snow removal firm do not extend to the point that they must compensate a person for any injury suffered by her. They should take reasonable steps to prevent that the co-owners would fall on the ice, and the proof that they had done that satisfied the Court.

According to the Court the defendants have done nothing wrong and therefore the claim for damages by the co-owner must be rejected.

For any questions regarding co-ownership, as well as concerning real-estate law, do not hesitate to contact our team of lawyers specialized in this matter.


¹. Normandeau vs. Syndicat des copropriétaires Les Villas Inverness et al.,
2013 QCCQ 11581
². Castro vs. 4258649 Canada Inc., 2013 QCCA 997