Definition : Rebuttable presumption

Legal presumption that can be rebutted or challenged by evidence to the contrary (e.g. the presumption of liability of the custodian of a property or the presumption that a undived co-owner absent at a meeting of co-owners consents to the other co-owners representing him, if he has not, in writing, mandated a third person for that purpose or has indicated his refusal to be represented.). Its antonym is irrebuttable presumption.

Related articles


Question: Are the co-owners of a vertical co-ownership considered undivided in the horizontal condominium? And if so, what would be the impact on representativeness at the general meeting of the horizontal condominium (AGM)?  For example, could a few co-owners of a vertical condominium act for all the co-owners without having previously held proxies as for the undivided co-owners of a condo during the vertical condominium AGM?
Login / Register to read this article
  In co-ownerships, most water heaters (electric or gas) are installed within the apartments. In such a case, this device is an integral part of the private portions of the building. Each co-owners therefore has the responsibility to ensure the proper functioning, by checking (notably) any signs of dilapidation, and, if necessary, by replacing it at its own expense. Failing to do so, in the event of a breach, a co-owner could be held liable for any damages to the common areas of the building, as well as to the private portions owned by other co-owners, up to the amount of the deductible provided for the syndicate's insurance coverage.    
View more
The first sentence of article 1090 of the Quebec civil Code states that "Each co-owner is entitled to a number of votes at a general meeting proportionate to the relative value of his fraction." The number of votes is related to the share of property rights each co-owner holds in the building. Therefore, the co-owner of a private portion whose relative value is higher will have more voting rights. In return, he or she will have to contribute to a larger portion of the costs related to the preservation of the immoveable and the maintenance and administration of the common portions, since common expenses are also distributed among all the co-owners according to the relative value of each portion.
View more
Question: I do not understand how my right to vote at co-ownership meetings works. As a matter of fact, I am not the sole owner of my unit: my spouse and I are both on the ownership title, we are co-owners of equal shares (50%-50%). I have the impression that if I go to a meeting without my spouse, I will not be able to vote validly. Is this correct?
Login / Register to read this article
Every co-owner should participate to all meetings to ensure the meeting of co-owners can reach a quorum and therefore deliberate and take decisions. When a co-owner cannot go there, he can ask the person of his choice to represent him. The mandatary the one who receives the proxy is not necessarily another co-owner. It may be a person outside the co-ownership. The latter will thus be able to represent him in this meeting and vote in his place on all the questions on the agenda.   A written instrument is compulsory Tacit mandate being excluded, you must give a written instrument to the mandatary of your choice if you wish to be represented at the Meeting. The latter, who will represent you and vote on your behalf during the general meeting, can be one of the directors of the co-ownership (in his personal capacity), another co-owner, a friend or a person totally foreign to the co-ownership.
View more