In a recent decision of the Court of Quebec, small claims division 1, the Court decided that a syndicate of co-owners could be held liable for damage caused by falling snow from its roof, but could avoid liability if it proves having committed no fault.
The parties’ claims
The plaintiff, who is not one of the co-owners of the building, but rather the friend of one of the co-owners, claims from the syndicate the sum of $672.16 as a result of damage to his car.
The syndicate denies responsibility for the damage suffered by the plaintiff because it would be solely responsible for any damage. Alternatively, the syndicate alleges that the claim is exaggerated.
The facts
The plaintiff testified that he drove with his car to the building of the syndicate to visit a friend who is co-owner in the building of the syndicate. This is not the first time, and the defendant admits to knowing the premises well.
Not long after, he was given notice by one of the co-owners to move his car which was parked in front of the garage door as there was a risk of snowfall. The defendant moved his vehicle two meters but remained parked in front of the garage door. Approximately thirty minutes after moving the car, a large amount of snow fell off the roof and damaged the car of the defendant.
The issue in litigation
Given the claims of the parties, the Court must answer the following question: Is the syndicate of co-ownership responsible for the damage caused to the vehicle of the applicant?
First, the Court observes that the syndicate of co-owners is the person responsible for the common portions of the building. Section 1039 of the Quebec Civil Code says:
“1039. Upon the publication of the declaration of co-ownership, the co-owners as a body constitute a legal person, the objects of which are to preserve the immovable, to maintain and manage the common portions, to protect the rights appurtenant to the immovable or the co-ownership and to take all measures of common interest.
The legal person is called a syndicate.”
The Court notes that because of this section, the syndicate must maintain the property in good condition. From this arises its obligation of maintenance. The Court confirms that the syndicate is the guardian of the common portions of the building, and that it has power of control and supervision thereof.
The Court notes that according to case law, the ice which comes off of a roof can be considered as a self-made fact of a good 2 as provided in Section 1465 of the Quebec Civil Code, which reads as follows:
“1465. A person entrusted with the custody of a thing is liable to reparation for injury resulting from the autonomous act of the thing, unless he proves that he is not at fault.”
However, the Court notes that the evidence does not allow to determine the precise reason for which the ice covering the roof suddenly detached, but it retains that it is because of an independent fact of the thing for which the syndicate can be responsible.
Since the presumption of section 1465 of the Civil Code of Quebec applies, the syndicate must establish that it did no wrong. In order to prove this, according to the case law 3, the syndicate must convince the Court that a reasonable person in the same circumstances would not have been able to prevent the damage in respect of the general provisions that had to be taken, more in particular by the caretaker.
According to the evidence presented to the Court, it is clear that a co-owner had toured the condos to notify the people concerned to move their cars. Although the applicant expressed to the Court that he is not happy with the way he had been notified, the Court notes that nonetheless he was informed. Moreover, following the advice he had received, he moved his car. Unfortunately, despite moving a few meters, the car still had received a heavy load of snow and ice coming from the roof, which damaged the vehicle.
By notifying the plaintiff to move the vehicle, the Court is of the opinion that the syndicate rejected the presumption of fault under Section 1465 of the Civil Code of Quebec. The Court concludes that the syndicate has taken all reasonable steps in the circumstances to prevent the damage, and this according to the standard of a prudent and diligent person. Therefore, for these reasons the Court rejected the plaintiff’s claim and condemned him to pay the court costs of the syndicate of $62.
For any questions on real-estate law, do not hesitate to communicate with our team of legal experts in the field.
1. 550-32-021045-130, 2014 QCCQ 3080
2. Chapleau vs. Chapleau (2002) RRA 773
3. Équipements Emu ltée vs. Quebec (City) 2011 QCCS1038
Snowfall: the syndicates must be vigilant
