![]() Should such works require a subdivision of fractions, then it may be advisable for developers to create the intended fractions in the declaration of co-ownership even if such fractions will have a different interim use or will be physically joined. Should any substantial works be required, that is, works that will need the approval of a double majority under article 1097 CCQ or a 90% majority under article 1098 CCQ, it is certainly best that they take place before the developer’s loss of control over the syndicate. Indeed, as any owner, the developer will have to submit to (1) the declaration of co-ownership which constitutes a contract between all co-owners and (2) the will of the assembly of co-owners which is binding in this small-scale democracy. In such circumstances, its expertise may be more of a hindrance than a blessing if further works are required. ![]() ![]() Takeawayįollowing the loss of power provided at article 1104 CCQ, the developer becomes a co-owner like any other. As for the question of systematic opposition, this was irrelevant to the case, as the conduct of the election was never obstructed.įurther, the Court held that the 90-day delay provided in the CCQ under article 1103 is a delay of forfeiture. In its judgment, the Court (1) reminds us that article 1103 CCQ enshrines the doctrine of abuse of rights in matters of divided co-ownership, (2) concludes that there was no such abusive conduct by the syndicate of co-owners in the case at bar and (3) adds that, not only was the mistrust of certain co-owners against the developer not “abusive,” it was justified in light of the developer’s lack of transparency in the conduct of its project. In this case, the Court saw no reason to intervene in the co-owners’ decision, and dismissed the developer’s claim. Likewise, a co-owner may seize the Court where systematic opposition of a group of co-owners prevents a vote to take place. These articles provide that any co-owner (including the developer who still owns a unit) may apply to the Court and ask to annul or amend a decision of the co-owners if this decision is biased, taken with intent to injure the co-owners, in contempt of their rights or if an error was made in counting the votes. 9165-2115 Québec inc., 2022 QCCS 4000, as it rendered judgment in favour of Fasken’s client via the application of the newly minted articles 1103 CCQ and 1103.1 CCQ. On October 27, 2022, the Court addressed these questions in Syndicat des copropriétaires de Gillette Lofts c. How far does a developer’s loss of control stretch once control is remitted to a syndicate of co-owners under article 1104 CCQ? How absolute is this syndicate’s power following such transfer of control?
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |