Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Netco and Nettoyants Économiques sought reimbursement of $10,780.25 (reduced from an original claim of $15,000) for contributions they alleged were wrongly made toward residential common-area maintenance charges.

• Jurisdiction emerged as the threshold issue, since the Small Claims Division cannot rule on a monetary claim that first requires assessing the legality of a board or assembly resolution.
   
• Article 1064 C.C.Q. and Article 22 of the Declaration of Co-ownership governed whether Netco, as owner of the sole commercial unit, was obligated to contribute to residential common-area charges.
   
• Bad faith allegations against the Syndicat were rejected outright, given that Lise Lemieux herself sat on the board and participated in the very budget decisions she later challenged.
   
• Findings of abusive conduct by the plaintiffs supported the Syndicat's cross-demand for reimbursement of a portion of its legal fees.
   
• Two post-hearing corrections — regarding a misstated invoice amount and a withdrawn portion of the claim — reduced the plaintiffs' total claim before the court ultimately dismissed it in full.
   

Facts of the case

Gestion Netco inc. owns, and Les Nettoyants Économiques-Écologiques Lemieux inc. leases, a commercial unit at 4777 Avenue Papineau in Montréal, part of a divided co-ownership administered by the Syndicat de la copropriété Espace Plateau. The building's residential units occupy 4775 Avenue Papineau. Lise Lemieux is the principal shareholder of both companies and also personally owns two residential units in the building; her brother, Gilles Jr Lemieux, works for the plaintiff companies and resides with her part-time.

Netco and Nettoyants Économiques claimed they had, between 2022 and 2025, mistakenly contributed toward residential common-area maintenance costs at Netco's 34.9% ownership share, submitting invoices that at various points in the proceeding totalled $32,066.20, $33,364.24, and other conflicting figures. They sought reimbursement of $11,191.10 in principal, plus $2,728.93 in damages for inconvenience and stress, plus $1,079.97 in interest calculated from each payment date rather than from formal notice — for a combined claim of $15,000. After the hearing, the plaintiffs withdrew the portion of the claim tied to a $12,030.98 invoice (mistakenly recorded elsewhere as $12,090.98) that had been paid from the co-ownership's contingency fund, reducing the claim to $10,780.25. The Syndicat cross-demanded $2,500, representing part of the legal fees it incurred defending the claim, out of total fees of $5,619.40.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

The dispute centred on Article 1064 of the Civil Code of Québec, which requires each co-owner to contribute to common charges in proportion to their unit's relative value, while limiting contribution toward restricted-use common portions to the co-owners who use them. The court also examined Article 1043 C.C.Q., defining common portions, and Article 536 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which sets the Small Claims Division's $15,000 monetary ceiling. From the co-ownership's own Declaration, Article 9 defines common systems (heating, electrical, plumbing, and similar), Article 21 sets each co-owner's proportional contribution to common expenses based on unit value, and Article 22 provides that charges tied to restricted-use common portions are allocated only among co-owners who use them — excluding, however, the cost of major repairs or replacement, which are drawn from the contingency fund. The plaintiffs relied on Article 22 to argue Netco, as sole commercial-unit owner, should not have to fund residential-area upkeep; the Syndicat pointed to the broader obligation in Article 21 and the Declaration's general contribution scheme.

Reasoning and analysis

The court found the jurisdictional question dispositive. Sitting in the Small Claims Division, the Tribunal cannot rule on the legality of a resolution adopted by a syndicate's board or by the assembly of co-owners, nor can it decide a monetary claim that first requires assessing such a resolution's validity. Because the plaintiffs did not contest the validity of the budgets under which they made their payments — only their legal basis in principle — and because resolving the claim would have required the Tribunal to pass on the propriety of those budget decisions, the court concluded it lacked jurisdiction to order the reimbursement sought. The court also noted that a separate request — for monthly bank statements retroactive to May 2025 — sought to sidestep a June 2026 assembly resolution and fell outside the Tribunal's authority to order non-monetary relief.

On the merits framing, the court observed the apparent contradiction in Lise Lemieux's position: she served as the Syndicat's treasurer and sat on the board that approved the very budgets she later characterized as adopted in bad faith and in breach of the Declaration. The court described this stance, and the accompanying bad-faith allegation, as without foundation and abusive. The judgment also flagged several unresolved arithmetic discrepancies across the plaintiffs' own filings — differing totals for the expenses claimed ($19,267.97 in the formal notice versus $32,066.20 and $33,364.24 elsewhere) — without resolving which figure was accurate, and corrected a transcription error in one invoice amount ($12,090.98 versus the actual $12,030.98).

Ruling and overall outcome

The Tribunal dismissed the plaintiffs' claim for lack of jurisdiction, after taking note that the plaintiffs had reduced it to $10,780.25 following the hearing. It granted the Syndicat's cross-demand, finding that Gestion Netco inc. and Les Nettoyants Économiques-Écologiques Lemieux inc. could not have been unaware that their claim lacked legal foundation. The court ordered the plaintiffs to pay the Syndicat de la copropriété Espace Plateau $2,500 in damages, with interest running from July 21, 2025, plus $306 in legal costs — the latter representing the combined court fees paid to file the contestation ($237) and the cross-demand ($69). The judgment also corrected the plaintiff's registered name to "Les Nettoyants Économiques-Écologiques Lemieux inc."