Definition : Good faith

Cohabiting with others in a building in divided co-ownership implies the right to respect for the private life. This right is guaranteed by article 3 of the Civil Code of Québec and  the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. Its informational dimension is legally protected by  the Act respecting the protection of personal information in the private sector (PHIPA). With the assent  of Bill 64 on September 22, 2022, new rules for the use and dissemination of personal information have subject (and will subject) the world of co-ownership since September 22, 2022, while other rules will come into force in September 2023 and 2024.

Life in co-ownership is not always a long quiet river. It is like a micro-society where disputes are omnipresent. Many conflicts are neighborhood quarrels, which are usually settled with civility. However, it happens that some disputes are fueled by co-owners thirsty for justice who will want to assert their rights in court at all costs. This is why divided co-ownership is not immune to quarrelsome litigants who multiply legal recourses to redress real or fictitious damage. They usually represent themselves alone in court. They show stubbornness and narcissism by systematically trying to have indirectly what cannot be obtained directly.These righters seek to harm others by abusing their right to go to court.  

The law does not establish an exhaustive list of the duties and obligations that the members of the board of directors must assume. It is the declaration of co-ownership (constituting act of the co-ownership) and certain articles of the Civil Code of Québec which, for the most part, determine them. Furthermore, the administrators are considered to be agents of the syndicate. Directors must therefore act within the limits of the powers conferred on them by law and by the declaration of co-ownership. As such, they are required to act with care, diligence, honesty, loyalty, efficiency, fairness, and in the interest of the union.    

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.

Harassment in co-ownership can take many forms and develop in a wide variety of contexts. When occupants of a building with very different temperaments share a place to live, it happens that the spirits heat up to the point of making cohabitation impossible. A co-owner who infringes on his neighbor's privacy and interferes in his privacy can be particularly irritating and even embarrassing. If he comes to photograph him when he walks through the common portions, monitors all his comings and goings or installs a surveillance camera in the corridor pointing towards his front door, then there is an illegitimate invasion of his privacy. Such serious conduct can be considered psychological harassment, in that it seriously harms the person who is the victim.

Co-ownership conflicts often arise from a lack of knowledge of the rules governing the immovable, a lack of communication or transparency, or from an unresolved misunderstanding. Know that in such cases, a trial is not the only avenue available to you. Before commencing legal proceedings, and even once they are engaged, and even once they are initiated, there is always time to opt for the services of a mediator. The latter, who is a neutral and impartial third party, could help you resolve (without decision-making power) a dispute between a co-owner and the syndicate or members of the board of directors between them.

The desire to preserve the safety of people and property can lead both syndicates and co-owners to consider installing surveillance cameras in the building. For many, when a co-ownership faces repeated acts of vandalism or burglary, video surveillance appears to be the only solution, especially since the decrease in the cost of installations and technical progress facilitate its access. However, the question of the legality of such facilities raises several debates in co-ownership. It should be noted that surveillance cameras are used in many buildings, although they do not please everyone, including the occupants of the building who claim the right to privacy. However, are surveillance cameras in a co-ownership legal? And if so, is there a procedure to follow?

The preliminary contract is an important step in any purchase of new or a property to be built.  At all times, the unequivocal will for the buyer to acquire the property must be registered.  Although the Civil Code of Quebec specifies the mandatory content of a preliminary contract, the statements contained therein are not exhaustive.  To be valid, the preliminary contract must include a certain number of mandatory information, under penalty of nullity. It is also possible to insert various optional clauses in this contract to deepen the conditions of this one.