Water Damage

Co-ownership is based on a balance between rights and obligations, where each owner must maintain their unit and comply with the co-ownership declaration. In the event of a loss, responsibility becomes crucial: who assumes the deductible, and under what conditions can the Syndicate claim compensation? This question 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 cover the $100,000 insurance deductible, the Syndicate sued the co-owner for this amount, citing several contractual breaches.

Breaches attributed to the co-owner

• Failure to hand over the keys: The Syndicate was unable to access the unit quickly to stop the water flow, worsening the damage.
• Lack of insurance: The co-owner only took out civil liability and property damage insurance after the incident, in violation of the obligations stated in the co-ownership declaration.
• Lack of maintenance: The bidet seat had not been inspected for over ten years, whereas preventive maintenance could have prevented the equipment failure.

A defense based on the Syndicate’s negligence

Disputing his liability, the co-owner rejected these accusations and countered by arguing that the Syndicate had also been negligent. He specifically blamed it for not insisting more forcefully on receiving the keys or verifying his insurance coverage.

Key takeaways from the ruling in Syndicat des copropriétaires du 1200 Ouest v. Sarhan (2025 QCCS 434)

The Court had to determine whether the Syndicate was entitled to claim the deductible amount from the co-owner under the first version of Article 1074.2 of the Civil Code of Quebec, which governed Syndicate claims against co-owners for losses occurring between 2018 and March 2020.

In its ruling, the Superior Court confirmed that the obligations outlined in the co-ownership declaration are key in establishing a co-owner’s liability. Citing the legal doctrine of Me Yves Joli-Coeur and Me Charlotte Fortier (Implementation of the Second Version of Article 1074.2 C.C.Q., Recent Developments in Divided Co-ownership Law, 2023 [in French]), the Court reiterated that failure to maintain private installations can constitute a contractual fault, making the co-owner liable.

In this case, the Court concluded that the co-owner had been clearly negligent in several respects:

• He had never inspected or maintained his bidet seat in 11 years.
• He only obtained insurance after the loss, contrary to the requirements of the co-ownership declaration.
• His failure to provide the keys, despite the declaration’s obligation, delayed the Syndicate’s intervention, aggravating the damage.

Thus, the Court ruled that the co-owner was at fault under the co-ownership declaration, and the Syndicate was entitled to seek compensation from him.

Shared fault with the Syndicate

However, the ruling did not entirely absolve the Syndicate. The Court acknowledged that it had also failed in its duties by not implementing a rigorous follow-up on the co-owners’ obligations. Over the years, no follow-ups were made to request the keys or proof of insurance.

As a result, the liability was shared equally between the co-owner and the Syndicate. The Syndicate could only recover $50,000 of the $100,000 deductible it had paid.

Lessons from the decision for co-ownership syndicates

This ruling highlights several key lessons for both co-ownership syndicates and individual co-owners:

     1. Compliance with the co-ownership declaration is crucial:

• Every co-owner must fulfill their contractual obligations, including maintenance and insurance coverage.
• Failure to exercise due diligence can lead to significant financial liability.

     2. Syndicates must rigorously monitor co-owners' obligations, including:

• Requiring copies of keys to ensure a quick response in emergencies.
• Ensuring co-owners comply with obligations such as obtaining civil liability insurance.

     3. Effective co-ownership management is based on prevention:

• Implementing periodic inspections of private installations.

Conclusion: Vigilance as the best protection

This case clearly illustrates that in co-ownership, negligence—whether from a co-owner or the Syndicate—can be very costly. While syndicates must proactively manage members' obligations, co-owners must also take their responsibilities seriously.

Co-ownership syndicates must use all available means to enforce regulations and, if necessary, assert their rights in court.
This decision confirms that when a co-owner fails to meet their contractual obligations, a well-prepared and diligent Syndicate can obtain compensation.