Causal relationship between the operative event (e.g. the fault of one person or the active fact of a thing) and the damage suffered by another person. This is one of three elements along with fault and damage to establish a person's liability.
The juridical personality of the syndicate is distinct from the one of the co-owners and directors. His acts are binding only on himself, besides for the exceptions provided by law. The faults committed by the syndicate have consequences only on its own civil liability and not on the directors. Under these conditions, they are held harmless by the syndicate and assume no responsibility for any costs, expenses, charges or losses they have incurred for the administration of the building and the syndicate. This is the basic principle, but it is important to bring several nuances to it. Indeed, a director must never lose sight of the interest of the community of co-owners.
In principle, co-owners have the right to enjoy their private portion as he sees fit. In addition, the law provides for a duty of tolerance on the part of neighbours, i.e. to accept the normal inconveniences that may result from the exercise of the right of ownership by the other. However, there are limitations to this use. In the event that the nuisance caused by an occupant of the building becomes excessive, it constitutes an abnormal neighborhood disturbance. It is common for such a case to constitute a breach of clauses relating to the peaceful enjoyment of the private portions, which are provided for in the by-laws of the immovable. That said, an abnormal neighbourhood disturbance does not systematically constitute a violation of the declaration of co-ownership. It should be noted that in certain circumstances, this type of inconvenience may be punished, even if the perpetrator has not committed any fault.
Co-ownership is an environment conducive to conflict and acrimonious exchanges. Some people who are members of a community of co-owners are sometimes victims. This can happen at an annual meeting, when spirits are heating up and frustrations are at their peak. Latent conflicts between a co-owner and a director, deep disagreement about a resolution put to the vote, excesses following an unbearable tension are all examples that illustrate that in such situations, defamatory or insulting remarks can be expressed.
Co-ownership is not always a long quiet river
Life in co-ownership is not always easy. Never mind, we must remain calm in all circumstances, in order to avoid unproductive slippages that could lead to the court. Whether expressed consciously or not, defamatory statements and their consequences vary according to various criteria. Legally speaking at least. It is better to avoid being prosecuted for this reason, because it would result in a toxic climate in the building, not to mention possible sequelae that would poison the lives of the people concerned.
In the same way as any other natural or legal person, a syndicate of co-owners is likely to incur civil liability towards third parties, including co-owners. Responsibility is the counterpart of power: where authority is, there is responsibility. This responsibility can be translated into the financial contribution of the co-owners, since in the event of a judgment condemning the syndicate to pay a sum of money, this judgement will be enforceable against him and each of the persons who were co-owners at the time the cause of action arose, in proportion to the relative value of their fraction.Therefore the law obliges any syndicate of co-owners to take out insurance covering its civil liability towards third parties.