Condominium ownership is based on a balance of rights and obligations, where each owner must maintain their unit and comply with the declaration of co-ownership. In the event of an incident, liability becomes crucial: who covers the deductible, and under what conditions can the Syndicate seek compensation? This issue arose in April 2019 when water damage caused by a defective bidet seat affected seven other units in a divided co-ownership building. Having to assume the $100,000 insurance deductible, the Syndicate sued the co-owner for this amount, citing several contractual breaches.
The breaches alleged against the co-owner
1. Failure to hand over keys: The Syndicate was unable to quickly access the unit to stop the flow of water, which aggravated the damage.
2. Lack of insurance: The co-owner only took out civil liability and damage insurance after the loss, in violation of the obligations set out in the declaration of co-ownership.
3. Lack of maintenance: No inspection of the bidet seat has been performed by the owner for more than 10 years, even though preventative maintenance could have prevented equipment failure.
A defence based on the Syndicate's negligence
Disputing his responsibility, the co-owner rejected these accusations and retaliated by claiming that the Syndicate had also been negligent. In particular, he reproaches him for not having demanded more vehemently the handing over of the keys, nor for having checked the latter's subscription to insurance.
Lessons from the judgment Syndicat des copropriétaires du 1200 Ouest v. Sarhan (2025 QCCS 434)
The Court had to determine whether the Syndicate was entitled to claim the amount of the deductible from the co-owner, pursuant to the first version of article 1074.2 of the Civil Code of Québec, which governed the Syndicate's recourses against a co-owner in the event of a loss occurring between 2018 and March 2020.
In its judgment, the Superior Court confirmed that the obligations set out in the declaration of co-ownership are decisive in establishing the co-owner's liability. Relying in particular on the doctrine of the authors Yves Joli-Coeur and Charlotte Fortier (The implementation of the second version of article 1074.2 C.C.Q., Recent developments in the law of divided co-ownership, 2023), it recalls that the failure to maintain private facilities may constitute a contractual fault engaging the liability of a co-owner.
In this case, the Court concluded that in this case, the co-owner was clearly negligent, in several respects:
• He has never inspected or maintained his bidet seat, in 11 years.
• He only took out insurance after the accident, contrary to what was required by the declaration of co-ownership.
• The failure to hand over the keys, despite the obligation in the declaration of co-ownership, delayed the intervention of the Syndicate, which aggravated the damage.
Thus, the Court ruled that the co-owner was at fault, pursuant to the declaration of co-ownership, and that the Syndicate was therefore entitled to claim compensation from him.
A fault shared with the Syndicate
However, the judgment does not completely clear the Syndicate. The Court recognized that he had also failed in his obligations by failing to put in place a rigorous monitoring of the obligations of the co-owners. No reminder has been made over the years to require the handing over of the keys and proof of insurance.
As a result, the responsibility is shared equally between the co-owner and the Syndicate. The latter will therefore only be able to recover $50,000 of the $100,000 deductible he had paid.
Lessons from the decision for syndicates of co-owners
This judgment highlights several crucial lessons for syndicates of co-owners and the co-owners themselves:
1. Compliance with the declaration of co-ownership is essential:
2. Syndicates must rigorously monitor the obligations of co-owners, among other things:
3. Good co-ownership management is based on prevention:
Conclusion: vigilance as the best protection
This case illustrates perfectly that in matters of co-ownership, negligence – whether it comes from a co-owner or the Syndicate – can be very costly. While syndicates must be proactive in managing their members' obligations, co-owners must not neglect their responsibilities either.
Syndicates must therefore use all the means at their disposal to ensure compliance with the rules and, if necessary, assert their rights before the courts.
This decision confirms that when a co-owner fails to meet its contractual obligations, a well-prepared and diligent Syndicate will be able to obtain compensation.
