Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Characterization of the lock repair as a “réparation majeure” under article 22 of the declaration of co-ownership and whether its cost should be borne by the syndicate’s contingency fund.
• Causation of the lock mechanism failure, specifically whether it stemmed from an inherent defect in the multi-point system or from the co-owner’s lack of maintenance and excessive force on the handle.
• Allocation of responsibility between the co-owner and the syndicate for maintenance of common portions to restricted use, including the rear patio door mechanism.
• Assessment of the syndicate’s civil liability for alleged mismanagement and delay, particularly the manager’s failure to convey key information about the availability and price of the replacement cartridge.
• Recoverability of the co-owner’s extrajudicial legal fees and the evidentiary threshold for establishing abuse of rights or exceptional circumstances.
• Enforceability of the syndicate’s internal provisions on recovery of its own defense costs and indemnities, in circumstances where the co-owner’s claim is only partially successful and the reconventional claim is dismissed.

Facts of the co-ownership dispute

Rafik Daassa is the owner of one of 354 units in a divided co-ownership known as Quartier 54, administered by the Syndicat des copropriétaires Quartier 54 under a declaration of co-ownership first published in May 2010 and later amended. His unit is a townhouse-type property whose rear door opens onto a terrace; both the door, its multi-point locking mechanism and the terrace are qualified as common portions to restricted use under the declaration. On 3 March 2024, Daassa became unable to open the rear door to his unit. The door had a multi-point locking system, and the parties agreed that the immediate cause of the blockage was the failure of the internal mechanism that activates the multi-point anchoring system. The door was not repaired until 10 November 2024, during which period the co-owner claimed he had lost the use and enjoyment of his patio. Daassa brought a claim before the Small Claims Division of the Court of Québec, arguing that the failure was due to a known defect affecting these locks and that the repair therefore qualified as a “réparation majeure” under article 22 of the declaration of co-ownership. On that basis, he asserted that the syndicate should pay the repair cost from the contingency (fonds de prévoyance) and compensate him for inconvenience and legal expenses. The syndicate took the opposite view, contending that the problem did not arise from a construction or systemic defect but from improper use and lack of periodic adjustment of the anchoring points. According to the syndicate, the co-owner had continued to force the handle as the mechanism became harder to activate, eventually causing the lock to break. In its view, this was a maintenance issue, not a major repair, and the financial responsibility fell on the co-owner. The syndicate also pleaded in reconvention, claiming an indemnity for certain management fees and an amount set in the building regulations to compensate an administrator for the time spent attending court.

Historical context and documentary evidence of lock issues

Several years before Daassa acquired his unit in June 2022, the co-ownership had been dealing with recurrent problems involving door locks and hardware. Minutes of the board meetings showed that, in August 2018, the syndicate noted multiple problems with private door locks, leading it to identify replacement models and to have locksmiths replace the hardware on affected doors. Later minutes from 2020 and 2021 revealed ongoing issues with certain buildings and townhouses, including initiatives to convert problematic hardware and tests of replacement “cassettes” in specific units. These records suggested that the syndicate had experimented with different technical solutions, moving from an original German multi-point system to a standard North American one-point lock, and then to a new multi-point system sourced in Italy after discovering that the single-point option reduced door airtightness and performance. As understanding of the problem evolved, the syndicate advised co-owners that the multi-point systems—used both for doors and windows—required periodic adjustment of the anchoring points when operation became difficult. Otherwise, users risked damaging the internal mechanism by applying too much force to the handle.

Conduct and knowledge of the co-owner

Daassa testified that he had not been informed of these specific maintenance requirements when he purchased his unit. However, his own correspondence with the manager in March 2024 indicated that the rear door had been jamming from time to time and had become impossible to open in the days leading up to the final failure. In that email he also described the multi-point lock as being of poor quality and “known” to be problematic, and he acknowledged at trial that he had on several occasions had to push down hard on the handle in order to activate the mechanism before it finally blocked. The evidence further showed that the syndicate had already replaced the locking mechanism on this same rear door once in the past. From the syndicate’s perspective, the repeat failure and the way the problem evolved supported the conclusion that the underlying cause was lack of adjustment and excessive force rather than an intrinsic defect in the hardware itself.

Burden of proof and characterization of the repair

The Court emphasized that Daassa, as the party asserting that he was entitled to have the syndicate assume the repair cost, bore the burden of proving on a balance of probabilities that the work required amounted to a “réparation majeure” under the declaration. That meant offering clear and convincing evidence that the failure was probably, not just possibly, due to a major defect engaging the syndicate’s obligations. In this respect, the co-owner did not call the locksmith or any technical expert to analyze and explain the root cause of the failure. His claim of a hidden defect rested essentially on inferences drawn from the past minutes of meetings that referenced other lock issues in the complex. In contrast, the documentary trail and his own testimony supported the thesis that the multi-point system was sensitive to lack of maintenance and that repeated forcing of the handle could break the internal mechanism. The judge found that the probabilities weighed more heavily in favour of the syndicate’s version than of Daassa’s theory of a systemic defect. Since the evidence did not establish that the repair was a major repair of common property within the meaning of the declaration, the Court held that the cost of replacing the mechanism remained the responsibility of the co-owner. The expense was treated as a maintenance-related repair rather than a major capital repair chargeable to the contingency fund.

Evaluation of the syndicate’s civil liability and the manager’s conduct

Although the Court rejected Daassa’s claim that the syndicate owed him the full cost of the repair and broad damages for delay and inconvenience, it examined closely the conduct of the syndicate’s manager in handling the file. The declaration and the Civil Code impose on the syndicate and its manager an obligation of means: they must administer the co-ownership and enforce the declaration reasonably, prudently and in good faith in the interest of all co-owners. In this case, the relationship between Daassa and the external management firm had quickly become strained, with the judge even characterizing it as “exécrable.” Evidence showed that the management company handled a large portfolio and that its staff were not dedicated exclusively to Quartier 54, which produced delays and misunderstandings; these inconveniences, however, were inherent in the service model accepted and financed collectively by the co-owners. The judge reviewed two earlier disputes between Daassa and the manager, one related to access to a mechanical room for a telecom provider during the 2022 holiday period and another concerning lost electronic access fobs in 2023. While these episodes contributed to mutual frustration and coloured perceptions, the Court did not find that the manager failed to meet its general obligation of means in those matters.

Specific fault in failing to transmit cost-saving information

The turning point in the civil liability analysis lay in what was not communicated to Daassa in March and April 2024. Internal emails showed that while the syndicate maintained its position that the mechanism failure resulted from inadequate maintenance by the co-owner, it was nonetheless willing to assist by supplying the specific replacement cartridge from its own stock. This cartridge was hard to source in Canada, and the syndicate held some units in reserve that it was prepared to sell to the co-owner for about 60 dollars plus tax, in order to keep repair costs down and avoid sourcing problems for the locksmith. However, the property manager’s email to Daassa simply referred him to a locksmith familiar with his lock system and did not mention the availability, price, or logistical advantage of obtaining the cartridge directly through the syndicate. Nor did the manager respond substantively to Daassa’s subsequent demand letter to convey this information. Daassa then proceeded to have the repair done and paid 369.22 dollars for the cartridge through the locksmith. On these facts, the Court concluded that the manager had committed a fault by failing to transmit information which the syndicate had expressly decided should be conveyed for the co-owner’s benefit. That omission caused a quantifiable loss: the difference between what Daassa actually paid and what he would have paid had he been properly informed and obtained the cartridge from the syndicate. As principal for its mandatary, the syndicate was held liable to indemnify the co-owner for this specific amount.

Treatment of delay, inconvenience and legal fees

The judge declined to award any additional sum for troubles, inconvenience or loss of enjoyment due to the eight-month period during which the rear door remained unusable. Because the Court held that responsibility for undertaking and scheduling the repair lay with the co-owner once the syndicate denied coverage, it followed that the delay was not attributable to the syndicate. The co-owner also bore a duty to mitigate his damages by acting reasonably promptly if the situation was genuinely problematic. As for the legal fees Daassa had paid to his lawyer, the Court reiterated the strict approach to recovery of extrajudicial fees in Quebec civil law. Absent an abuse of process or exceptional circumstances, each party must bear its own professional fees, even when one party has committed a fault on the merits. Here, the proceedings had been conducted in a proper, non-abusive manner, and the case did not present the sort of exceptional abuse that would justify shifting extrajudicial legal costs to the other party. Consequently, those fees were not recoverable as damages.

Outcome of the reconventional claim and final monetary disposition

On its side, the syndicate relied on article 103 of the declaration to pursue a counterclaim of 1,500 dollars, covering 500 dollars for management fees charged by the administration firm and 1,000 dollars as an indemnity for time spent by a volunteer administrator to attend court, as allegedly provided for in the building regulations. The building’s internal rules, however, were not placed into evidence, and in any event the co-owner’s action was partially successful. In this context, the Court found no basis to depart from the usual rule in Small Claims matters that each party bears its own costs and that parties are not compensated for their time or professional fees. The reconventional claim was therefore dismissed in its entirety. In the final orders, the Court partially granted Daassa’s claim and condemned the syndicate to pay him 301.50 dollars for the additional expense caused by the manager’s omission, 12.72 dollars for registered mail expenses, and 213 dollars in court costs. The reconventional claim was rejected, and no further judicial costs were awarded. As a result, the successful party was the co-owner, Rafik Daassa, who obtained a total monetary award of 527.22 dollars in this condominium small claims dispute.