2018 QCCQ 423, 2018 QCCQ 423

Gordon c. Syndicate of Rothchild II Condominium 2018 QCCQ 423 COURT OF QUEBEC «Small Claims Division» CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL TOWN OF MONTREAL "Civil Division" No: 500-32-152451-169 DATE: January 25, 2018 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE DIANE QUENNEVILLE, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ ROBERT GORDON Plaintiff v.

SYNDICATE OF ROTHCHILD II CONDOMINIUM Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Plaintiff Robert Gordon claims from the Defendant Syndicate of Rothchild II Condominium, $ 15,000, of which $ 7,000 for stress, harassment and inconveniencies, $ 4,000 for moral damages and $ 4,000 for punitive damages. [ 2 ] The Defendant denies the claim on the basis that it is Plaintiff’s conduct that is disruptive, with demands that are unreasonable and exaggerated.

THE FACTS [ 3 ] The Rothchild II Condominium was built in 1988.

It is comprised of 57 units. [ 4 ] The building is managed by an independent firm Gestior gestion immobilière whose representatives are Danielle MacPherson, Sylvia Lerman and Lenny Rothenberg. [ 5 ] Four members sit on the Board: Lyon Kunin, President, Albert Aaron, Administrator and formerly the President of the Board and two other Board members. [ 6 ] The Plaintiff has been a co-owner for 29 years. [ 7 ] in his demand, the Plaintiff lists five complaints that form the basis of his recourse: 1- The Board refused to give documents to the Plaintiff that he was entitled to obtain; 2- The Board ignored Plaintiff’s requests to stop putting letters and notices into his mailbox; 3- The Plaintiff was assaulted by Carole Kunin, the spouse of Lyon Kunin, the President of the Board; 4- The Board neglected to repair in a timely fashion, flooding that occurred in Plaintiff’s locker; 5- The Board singled out the Plaintiff by asking him to provide documents regarding his vehicle. [ 8 ] The Court will deal separately with each of these complaints. 1- THE BOARD REFUSED TO GIVE DOCUMENTS TO THE PLAINTIFF THAT HE WAS ENTITLED TO OBTAIN [ 9 ] The Plaintiff complains that the Board refused to give him access to documents and provide him with copies of the minutes of the Board meetings. [ 10 ] The Plaintiff argues that the Board has the obligation of providing copies of documents to any co-owner who requests it, in accordance with the articles of the Declaration of Co-Ownership [1] . [ 11 ] The Plaintiff also argues that previous Board members did provide him copies of documents he requested, whereas the actual Board has informed the Plaintiff that they would no longer provide copies. [ 12 ] On this issue, the Board argues that the minutes of Board meetings are not distributed to the co-proprietors, as they contain sensitive and/or confidential information.

The Board adds that any document that is for general disclosure to the co-proprietors, is made available for consultation.

The analysis [ 13 ] The Declaration of Co-Ownership contains the rules and regulations dealing with the administration of the Syndicate, the relationship between the administration and the co-proprietors and the relationship between the co-proprietors amongst themselves. [ 14 ]

Section 10 Administrators provides the manner in which the administrators conduct the business of the Board and in sub-section B, it lists the powers and duties of the administrators. [ 15 ] Sub-article XXI specifies which information is provided at the annual general meeting: the Administrators render a report of their administration to the co-owners and present an audited financial statement at the end of each fiscal year … Said annual financial statement must be made available to each co-proprietor or mortgagee . [ 16 ] Sub-article XXIX specifies the records that must be kept by the Administrators, namely, at paragraph b): The minutes of meetings of the Administrators and co-proprietors. [ 17 ] The last paragraph states: All records shall be available for inspection at reasonable hours by all co-proprietors and mortgagees. [ 18 ] The Plaintiff refers the Court to page 53 of the Declaration of Co-Ownership, more specifically to sub-paragraph c) which deals with the duties of the Secretary: He shall attend all the meetings of the Co-Proprietors and shall enter or cause to be entered in books kept for that purpose, minutes of all proceedings at such meeting.

He shall further certify true extracts of the minutes of meetings of the co-proprietors and furnish copies of said extracts, on demand, to any co-proprietor, mortgagee or Administrators. [ 19 ] In light of the above mentioned rules, the Court has no hesitation in concluding that a co-proprietor does not have the right to obtain copies of all documents. [ 20 ] The only documents made available for inspection are the minutes of the annual general meeting and minutes of meetings between the Board and the co-proprietors . These documents can be consulted by making an appointment at a reasonable time.

Therefore, the Board has no obligation to provide copies. [ 21 ] As for the minutes of Board meetings, when the co-proprietors are not present, they remain confidential and are not provided to the co-proprietors. [ 22 ] If for a specific purpose, a co-proprietor needs an extract of the minutes of meetings between the administrators and the co- proprietors, only an extract of said minutes is provided by the Secretary.

In other words, to obtain a copy of an extract of a minute, this extract must deal with a specific subject matter relevant to the co-proprietor’s request. [ 23 ] If in the past, the administrators provided copies of documents to the Plaintiff or to other co-proprietors, they had no obligation to do so and this manner of proceeding is not binding on the present administration. 2- THE BOARD IGNORED PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS TO STOP PUTTING LETTERS AND NOTICES INTO HIS MAILBOX [ 24 ] The Plaintiff states that, in the past, the Board had access to the co-proprietors’ mailboxes and put letters or notices from the Board in each personal mailbox. [ 25 ] The Plaintiff insists on receiving these documents by other means. [ 26 ] The Board denies that it ever had access to individual co-proprietors’ mailboxes. [ 27 ] The practice followed in the past, but since abandoned, following the complaint by the Plaintiff, was that the building’s doorman would give to the mailman notices or letters from the Board asking the mailman to insert them in individual mailboxes.

The analysis [ 28 ] Nothing illegal or wrongful or causing any damage resulted from the Board handing to the mailman letters and notices emanating from the Board, addressed to the co-proprietors. [ 29 ] The confidentiality and sanctity of the mail service was preserved as only the mailman had access to the co-proprietors’ mailboxes. [ 30 ] It is up to the Board to decide the manner in which letters and notices are sent to the co-proprietors.

For example, the doorman could hand out the documents to the co-proprietors, sliding the documents under the door of the co-proprietors’ unit, by email or informing the co-proprietors that letters or notices are available at the administrator’s office. [ 31 ] The Court lists these manners as to emphasize the fact that the Board has no obligation to use a specific method of delivery of letters and notices. 3- THE PLAINTIFF WAS ASSAULTED BY CAROLE KUNIN, THE SPOUSE OF LYON KUNIN, THE PRESIDENT OF

THE BOARD [ 32 ] The Plaintiff states that Ms. Kunin would have hit him in the face with a letter. [ 33 ] The Plaintiff adds that a complaint was filed against Ms. Kunin and the complaint was followed up by a criminal Crown prosecutor. [ 34 ] The Board argues that this was a personal matter between the Plaintiff and Ms. Kunin and the Board cannot be held responsible for the conduct of Ms. Kunin. The analysis [ 35 ] The matter has been dealt with by the Plaintiff who filed a criminal complaint.

The Court concludes that the Board is not responsible for the dispute between these two co-proprietors. [ 36 ] The fact that Ms. Kunin is the spouse of the President of the Board has no impact on the Court’s decision. 4- THE BOARD NEGLECTED TO REPAIR IN A TIMELY FASHION, FLOODING THAT OCCURRED IN PLAINTIFF’S LOCKER [ 37 ] The Plaintiff complains that a broken pipe occurred in December 2012, which caused water to get into his locker.

Again, in July 2013 and for the last time in November 2014, there was water seeping into Plaintiff’s locker. [ 38 ] The Plaintiff complains that it took some time to fix the problem, which was not dealt with in a professional manner. [ 39 ] The Board explains that the flooding was due to exceptional rainfall and the problem was difficult to locate, although many investigations were conducted by professionals. The analysis [ 40 ] Although these episodic flooding may have been a nuisance for the Plaintiff, he did not suffer any damage resulting from this.

More specifically his complaint is about the manner in which the Board dealt with the problem. [ 41 ] The administration of the building is left to the Board.

In this instance, the Court cannot conclude that the Board acted negligently and that the nuisance suffered by the Plaintiff is the result of a deliberate conduct by the Board. 5- THE BOARD SINGLED OUT THE PLAINTIFF BY ASKING HIM TO PROVIDE DOCUMENTS REGARDING HIS VEHICLE [ 42 ] The Plaintiff complains that the Board kept requesting that he provide documentation showing he was the owner of a van parked in the garage. [ 43 ] The Plaintiff showed his registration in January, March and April 2014, and April 2015. [ 44 ] The Board denies that these requests were done to annoy the Plaintiff and only directed at him. [ 45 ] The Board states that the Plaintiff rented his parking space to other co-proprietors or even individuals not co-proprietors or residing in the building.

The analysis [ 46 ] No evidence is provided that the Plaintiff was singled out or suffered damages because of the requests. THE CONCLUSION [ 47 ] The Court reminds the Plaintiff that life in a condominium setting has many advantages but also some inconveniencies.

For example, having to share common spaces, living in proximity to other co-owners and having to follow rules and regulations provided by the Civil Code of Québec , a Declaration of Co-Ownership and regulations adopted from time to time by board of directors. [ 48 ] These inconveniences are compounded by the fact that the individuals, be it co-proprietors or members of the Board, are all owners. [ 49 ] As stated, the management of the building and the administration of the Syndicate are done by administrators that are duly elected.

If the administrators do not accomplish their duties in accordance with the Declaration of co-ownership , the co-proprietors can replace one or all of the members of the Board. [ 50 ] However, the co-proprietors are not the immediate superior of Board members with the responsibility of overseeing the manner in which they fulfill their duties. [ 51 ] Having heard the testimony of the Plaintiff and witnesses, and reviewed the several documents, exchange of letters, notices, emails, etc. between the parties, the Court concludes that the Plaintiff has addressed many complaints to the Board and to the Administrators, but concludes that these complaints were unfounded.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT : DISMISSES Plaintiff’s action; WITH COSTS in the amount of $ 200 representing the judicial stamp of the Demand. __________________________________ DIANE QUENNEVILLE, J.C.Q.