A condominium association was ordered to pay $22,000 for a hot water problem

A co-owners association that recently experienced problems with the hot water supply in their former apartment has settled for more than $22,000 in a legal saga led by two Montreal co-owners.

In 2014, Erik Robitaille and Pierre Chatelain acquired a detached co-ownership on the sixth floor of the U31 real estate complex, then newly built in the Rosemont-La Petite-Patri district. For three years, they lived peacefully in their home until, in September 2017, they noticed that the water had to run for several minutes before it would be hot. Then they find themselves struggling to clean their dishes in the sloppy or even cold rain, underscoring a decision handed down on February 16 by Quebec court judge Catherine Pilon.

“The Court wishes to emphasize that there is nothing unreasonable, illegal or extravagant. [à] A resident must reside where hot water is properly or efficiently provided for the needs of daily life whether in winter or summer,” the judge notes.

So the co-owners contacted their co-owner association, which is responsible for the management of the building, which initially told them that this hot water supply problem was “normal in winter”. The co-owners repeatedly requested to use a professional who could find the source of this hot water supply problem, but instead the union did some work on the couple's co-ownership, where a plumber was specifically sent. .

However, “none of these measures were effective, so the plaintiffs, through their attorney, had to send a formal notice to the union on June 11, 2020, to hire an expert to determine the cause of the low hot water supply,” Judge Pilon's decision states.

Construction defect

It was only after the co-owners decided to take legal action that the co-owner association finally engaged the services of an engineering firm. It noted that the hot water supply problem was linked to a construction defect affecting common areas of the building. This issue has been fixed by the developer behind the real estate project.

The co-owners, who sold their accommodation in April 2022, have, for their part, pursued legal proceedings against the union for costs. To do this, they base themselves Section 1077 of the Civil Code of QuebecIt provides that “the co-owner's association is liable for damage to co-owners or third parties, without prejudice to any ancillary action, due to design or construction defects or failure to maintain common areas.”

A legal obligation the union failed to honor for years, confirms a Quebec court. “It took almost four years for the union to finally hire the right experts so that the problem could be identified and resolved,” judge Catherine Bylan condemned. Without actually taking seriously the situation of the plaintiffs”. The union should have mandated an expert from the start who could have traced the source of the hot water supply problem to the franchise, the judge said in his eight-page decision.

“As the plaintiff Robitaille, a doctor, stated in his testimony, a diagnosis must be made before recommending a remedy,” says the judge, whose co-owner association acted in “bad faith” in the file.

A Quebec court awarded the co-owners $7,200 in compensation for the hardships they suffered in their former lodgings over the years. The court granted the couple access to $15,280 in restitution to cover a portion of their legal fees for the years this legal saga dragged on.

An “exceptional” result

“This really demonstrates the duty of the co-owner association to ensure that co-owners' rights are respected, including full enjoyment,” the plaintiffs' lawyer, Philippe Gagnon-Marin, said in an interview.

The latter also noted that it was “exceptional” for a Quebec court to allow reimbursement of extrajudicial fees in such cases. Cases involving co-owners seeking compensation for hot water problems are rare, he notes, and are more common in the rental market. The lawyer hopes the decision will help raise awareness among condominium associations about the importance of respecting legal obligations.

“This judgment may ring a bell for unions who are not sufficiently aware of their obligations,” Ms.^e Gagnon-Marin.

Watch the video