Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Scope and effect of a buyer having accepted to purchase a condominium unit “à ses risques et périls” under article 1733 C.c.Q., barring recourse for hidden defects even if known to the seller.
• Allegations of dol under article 1401 C.c.Q. based on alleged omissions and misrepresentations by the seller, and whether silence about noise and prior structural modifications can amount to fraudulent concealment.
• Responsibility of a condominium syndicate in civil liability for alleged construction defects to a load-bearing wall and roof, and whether any fault, damage or causal link was proven.
• Evidentiary sufficiency regarding an alleged vice of construction in the roof structure versus contradictory expert evidence indicating no defect and no damage.
• Characterisation of ambient traffic noise as a subjective inconvenience and allocation of risk between seller/syndicate and purchaser who failed to verify the noise levels before purchase.
• Use of a professional email address in syndicate correspondence and whether copying a third party at that address constitutes a fault or a privacy breach causing compensable damage.

Factual background

Karl Samoisette purchased a condominium unit from Réal Côté in a divided co-ownership property in Granby, Québec. As part of the sale, Samoisette expressly agreed to purchase the unit “à ses risques et périls” within the meaning of article 1733 of the Civil Code of Québec, accepting the risk of defects affecting the property, including those known but undisclosed by the seller. Following his occupation and renovation of the unit, Samoisette became dissatisfied with several aspects of the property and the conduct of the condominium syndicate, Le Syndicat des Condos du Faubourg, which was insured by Société d’assurance Beneva Inc. He commenced a small claims action in the Civil Division of the Court of Québec against three defendants: the seller, Réal Côté; the syndicate; and Beneva as the syndicate’s insurer. Because his recourse in hidden defects was barred by his “risques et périls” undertaking, he attempted to reframe his case as one based on dol (fraudulent concealment or misrepresentation) on the seller’s part, and civil liability and breach of information duties on the syndicate’s part. The dispute centred on four main issues: a modified load-bearing wall discovered during renovations, an alleged construction defect in the building’s roof, traffic noise around the building, and the way the syndicate used email to communicate information about him to a third party.

Legal framework and obligations of the parties

The court began by identifying the core legal bases invoked. First, the dol claim arose under article 1401 C.c.Q., which provides that a contract may be annulled, or other remedies may be granted, where a party’s consent has been vitiated by the other party’s fraudulent acts, misrepresentations or concealment. Dol requires a form of bad faith aimed at inducing the other party to contract contrary to their interests. The court emphasised that this goes beyond mere silence about facts that the buyer could independently verify. Second, the civil liability claim was assessed under articles 1457 and 1458 C.c.Q., which require the plaintiff to establish a fault by the defendant, a compensable damage, and a causal link between the fault and the damage. These general rules were complemented by specific obligations of condominium syndicates, including duties to maintain and keep registers under articles 1070 and following C.c.Q., and obligations to disclose certain information to a prospective purchaser under article 1068.2 C.c.Q. The court reminded that the burden of proof for all alleged elements—fault, dol, damage and causation—rests on the claimant, who must succeed on a balance of probabilities under articles 2803 and 2804 C.c.Q. Against this legal backdrop, the court examined each complaint in turn.

Alleged issue with a modified load-bearing wall

During his renovation of the unit, Samoisette and his father discovered that a load-bearing wall had previously been weakened to create an opening. They repaired the wall by replacing cut studs as part of their renovation work. An expert report filed by the syndicate concluded that the repair performed by Samoisette’s father was adequate and resolved any structural concern. Importantly, Samoisette admitted that this situation had not caused him any specific financial or other damage: the problem was fixed in the normal course of renovations without additional loss. The court also found no basis to hold either Réal Côté or the syndicate liable. Côté was unaware of the prior modification, which had been carried out by a former owner, so the element of intentional concealment required for dol was missing. The syndicate similarly had no shown fault in relation to that earlier alteration or its later discovery and correction. Without fault and without damage, no claim could succeed on this issue.

Alleged construction defect in the roof structure

Samoisette further asserted that the building’s roof suffered from a construction defect. He relied on comments allegedly made by a former president of the syndicate at a meeting of co-owners in June 2021, at which there was discussion about a potential issue with the roof and a decision to leave it as it was and “live with” the situation. Concerned, Samoisette tried to identify and substantiate the purported vice. However, he ultimately conceded that he was unable to prove the existence of any specific structural defect. His implicit goal, as the court noted, was to obtain an order compelling the syndicate to undertake remedial work on the roof, a type of injunctive or management relief that falls outside the jurisdiction of the Small Claims Division, which mainly deals with monetary claims. On the evidentiary side, the only expert evidence directly addressing the roof was a report produced by a civil engineering technologist (D-6), which stated that there was no vice affecting the contested roof structure. Even the inspection report filed by Samoisette (P-20) did not identify a structural defect; it merely recommended improving gutter capacity, relocating certain ventilation outlets, and checking insulation—essentially maintenance recommendations rather than evidence of non-conformity or danger. In the absence of proof of a construction defect, and without any demonstrated damage linked to the roof, the court held that there was no basis to find dol against Côté or civil fault against the syndicate.

Complaints about traffic noise and alleged failure to disclose

Another major grievance concerned noise. Samoisette argued that the condominium was located in a particularly noisy environment due to its proximity to a heavily used roadway in Granby, and that this should have been disclosed either by the seller or by the syndicate. He produced documents showing that a former president of the syndicate had previously complained to municipal authorities about excessive noise and requested speed reduction or additional road signage. However, the court examined the same documentation and noted that the municipality’s response indicated the requested signage was already present, the speed limit in the area was 50 km/h, and that no credible ambient noise measurements established any exceedance of applicable standards. The court characterised noise as a subjective element: tolerance to traffic and environmental noise levels varies from person to person. When purchasing property in a busy area, responsibility lies primarily with the prospective buyer to perform visits, checks or investigations sufficient to decide whether the ambient noise is acceptable. The fact that Côté did not spontaneously mention noise did not amount to dol within the meaning of article 1401 C.c.Q., especially considering that article 1733 C.c.Q.—under which the buyer had agreed to purchase at his own risk—protects the seller even against claims concerning elements he knew of but did not reveal. As for the syndicate, the judge found that its duty of information about the state of the building did not extend so far as to require, under pain of civil liability, specific warnings that traffic noise might inconvenience a sensitive purchaser. The court therefore rejected any fault by either defendant on this ground.

Use of a professional email address and alleged privacy breach

The final issue concerned the syndicate’s communication practices. Samoisette complained that, in the course of email correspondence with him, the syndicate had copied the legal representative of another co-owner at an email address belonging to a commercial enterprise rather than to a named individual, thereby disclosing certain information about him to a business address. The syndicate replied that this was simply the address the co-owner had provided for that representative; that the address in question was in practice used exclusively by the intended recipient; that no sensitive information had been shared; and that, once the concern was raised, the address ceased to be used. The court accepted the syndicate’s explanations. It held that using a professional, exclusively used email address supplied by a co-owner as their designated contact for communications with the syndicate did not constitute a fault. Furthermore, even if there had been some arguable imperfection in the practice, no actual damage to Samoisette was proven. In the absence of both fault and damage, the civil liability claim on this point could not succeed.

Overall assessment of evidence and outcome

Taking a step back, the court concluded that, beyond expressing dissatisfaction, Samoisette had failed to establish any of the necessary elements of his various claims. No fraudulent misrepresentation or deliberate concealment was proved against the seller; no compensable fault, breach of duty, or actionable omission was proved against the syndicate; no actionable breach was established against the insurer; and no concrete damages were demonstrated flowing from any of the alleged wrongs. In addition, some of the remedies he appeared to seek—such as compelling corrective action by the syndicate on the roof—were beyond the jurisdiction of the Small Claims Division, which is not designed for injunctive or structural orders. In the result, the Court of Québec, Small Claims Division, rejected the entirety of Samoisette’s claim. The successful parties were the defendants, namely Réal Côté, the Syndicat des Condos du Faubourg and its insurer Beneva. The court did not award any damages, but instead ordered the plaintiff to reimburse the defendants’ court costs, specifically CAD 230.00 in filing fees for Réal Côté and CAD 369.00 in filing fees for the syndicate. The total monetary amount ordered in favour of the successful parties therefore amounted to CAD 599.00 in costs.