A co-ownership association was recently ordered to remit more than $22,000 to two Montreal co-owners who experienced hot water supply problems in their former residence for years before the problem was resolved, following a legal proceeding.
In 2014, Erik Robitaille and Pierre Chatelain acquired a divided co-ownership located on the sixth floor of the U31 real estate complex, then newly built in the borough of Rosemont–La Petite-Patrie. For three years, they lived peacefully in their home until they noticed, in September 2017, that they had to run the water for several minutes before it was hot. They then find themselves having to take lukewarm or even cold showers, in addition to having difficulty cleaning their dishes, underlines a decision rendered on February 16 by Court of Quebec judge Catherine Pilon.
“The Court wishes to emphasize that there is nothing unreasonable, illegitimate or extravagant in requiring one to live in a place which is correctly or efficiently supplied with hot water for the needs of daily life, whether in winter or in summer,” notes the judge.
The co-owners therefore contacted their co-ownership association, responsible for the management of the building, which first told them that this hot water supply problem was “normal in winter”. The co-owners then repeatedly requested the use of an expert who would be able to find the source of this hot water supply problem, but the union instead carried out some work in the couple’s co-ownership, where a plumber was dispatched in particular. .
However, “none of these steps bore fruit, so that the plaintiffs, through their lawyer, had to send a formal notice to the union on June 11, 2020 so that it retains an expert to determine the cause of the low hot water supply,” notes Judge Pilon’s decision.
Construction defect
It is only after the co-owners decide to take legal action against their co-ownership association that the latter finally uses the services of an engineering firm. She then noted that the hot water supply problem was linked to a construction defect affecting the common areas of the building. This problem was then corrected by the developer behind this real estate project.
The co-owners, who sold their unit in April 2022, for their part continued their legal action against the union to claim damages for the inconveniences suffered during the years when they experienced water supply problems. hot water in their homes, as well as reimbursement of their legal costs. To do this, they based themselves on article 1077 of the Civil Code of Quebec, which provides that the co-ownership syndicate “is responsible for damage caused to co-owners or third parties by design or construction defects or lack of maintenance. common areas, without prejudice to any recourse action.
A legal obligation that the union failed to respect for several years, rules the Court of Quebec. “It took almost four years and injunction procedures for the union to finally decide to appoint the right experts so that the problem could be identified and a solution found,” deplores judge Catherine Pilon, who notes that the union acted “abusively by dragging things out without really taking the plaintiffs’ situation seriously”. The union should instead have mandated from the start an expert who would have been able to find the source of the hot water supply problem in this co-ownership, the judge continues in her eight-page decision.
“As the plaintiff Robitaille, himself a doctor, said in his testimony, before prescribing a remedy it is necessary to make a diagnosis,” adds the judge, according to whom the co-ownership association acted “in bad faith” in This folder.
The Court of Quebec thus awarded compensation of $7,200 to the co-owners for the inconvenience they experienced in their former accommodation for several years. The court also gave the couple access to a reimbursement of $15,280 to cover part of their legal fees for the years during which this legal saga dragged on.
An “exceptional” decision
“It really demonstrates the obligation of the co-ownership association to ensure that the rights of the co-owners are respected, including that of full enjoyment,” notes the plaintiffs’ lawyer, Philippe Gagnon-Marin, in an interview.
The latter also notes that it is “exceptional” that the Court of Quebec thus allows reimbursement of extrajudicial fees in cases of this type. He also notes that cases relating to co-owners claiming compensation for hot water problems are rare, these being more common on the rental market. The lawyer hopes that this decision will help to make co-ownership associations aware of the importance of them respecting their legal obligations.
“The judgment may ring a bell for unions who may not be sufficiently aware of their obligations,” said Ms.e Gagnon-Marin.