2022 QCCQ 6958, 2022 QCCQ 6958

Grandison c. Tryansky 2022 QCCQ 6958 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL Civil Division No: 500-22-266813-214 DATE: September 23, 2022 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE ELIANA MARENGO, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ WINSTON GRANDISON ELGA GRANT NADIA GILLES CAROLINE MELANSON DANIELE TESSIER JILLIANE SHANNON MIN WEI HONGMEI DUAN XIAOLU ZHANG CHRISTIAN BALDWIN CHUCK CHIN MEI SIM SHUM JI MIN LI MOSTAFA BRIOU SAMUEL HERZOG PETKO KISSIOV ANNA GAYDOVA MAYANA KISSIOVA RACHID GUERNOUN OUASSILA BELAID Plaintiffs v. ERICA TRYANSKY Defendant and

OFFICIER DE LA PUBLICITÉ DES DROITS and CAISSE DESJARDINS DU COMPLEXE DESJARDINS Impleaded parties ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINATING APPLICATION FOR SALE UNDER JUDICIAL AUTHORITY BY AGREEMENT AND DAMAGES, AS AMENDED, RENDERED FROM THE BENCH [1] (articles 1022ff and 2791ff C.C.Q .) ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] GIVEN the evidence adduced at trial, namely the testimony of Rebecca Fallah, Christian Baldwin, Winston Grandison and the defendant Erica Tryansky, as well as exhibits P-1 to P-8 and D-1 to D-25; [ 2 ] WHEREAS plaintiffs, who along with defendant, are co-owners of a building held in undivided co-ownership, bearing civil address 4990 Walkley in Montreal (indivision agreement, exhibit P-1, and deed of sale, exhibit P-2); [ 3 ] WHEREAS , on April 20, 2021, plaintiffs filed an originating application against defendant seeking forced abandonment and sale under judicial authority; [ 4 ] WHEREAS plaintiffs allege that defendant is in default with regards to her share of the common charges, contrary to

article 2 of agreement P-1 and to her undertaking to, inter alia, pay all the costs of the undivided co-ownership charges and apply all the decisions made by the co-owners assembly, the whole in virtue of par. 8.5 of deed P-2; [ 5 ] WHEREAS , on September 22, 2022, at the out-set of the trial, defendant made the following admissions: ADMISSIONS 1. The defendant, Erica Tryansky, admits that she owes to the co-ownership represented by the plaintiffs the amount of $11,082.38 $ as condo fees due on September 22, 2022 at the exclusion of the late payment fees and the legal fees; 2.

The defendant takes the undertaking to pay to the plaintiffs the said amount and the monthly condo fees for October and November 2022 that is to say $ 936.96 ($468.48 x 2) + $11,082.38 for a total of $ 12,019.32 by a cheque or wire transfer or money order at the order of De Grandpré Jolicoeur in trust on or before November, 1 st 2022 . (written admissions filed into the Court record) [ 6 ] WHEREAS , however, defendant denied owing anything further to plaintiffs; [ 7 ] WHEREAS , accordingly, the trial proceeded on the remaining portion of the amended claim, totalling $38,671.33, more specifically on the portion regarding late fees and extrajudicial fees; [ 8 ] WHEREAS , with regards to the late fees, plaintiffs proved, by a preponderance of evidence (articles 2803 and 2804 C.C.Q. ), that the amount claimed of $8,299.84 outlined and broken down in exhibit P-7, is indeed owed by defendant (statement of account, exhibit P-7; testimony of Fallah; articles 2, 164 and 169 of agreement P-1 and

article 1019 C.C.Q .); [ 9 ] WHEREAS defendant’s contestation is unfounded, as none of the reasons given for withholding payment of the condo fees constitute valid reasons for doing so; [ 10 ] WHEREAS , as stated by the Court of Appeal in Raymond v. Raymond , 2017 QCCQ 241 , at paragraph 44 thereof: [44] Rappelons que la réfection du toit représente des impenses nécessaires que les copropriétaires indivis n’ont d’autre choix que d’assumer (en parts égales) aux termes de l’

article 1020 C.c.Q . [ 11 ] WHEREAS , in the present instance, disbursements to repair the roof, inter alia , were incurred, and it was defendant’s obligation to acquit her part of the common expenses; [ 12 ] WHEREAS , although defendant claims she is not satisfied with the way the condo is being managed, she cannot use this as an

excuse not to pay her share of the common expenses ( Saraffian v. Syndicat the la copropriété Villa Veritas phase 1 , 2017 QCCS 2230 at par. 155 ; [ 13 ] WHEREAS , furthermore, if defendant wishes management decisions to be revised, the Court of Québec is not the proper forum to do so ( Syndicat de la copropriété du 500 à 518 boulevard Perrot v. Salomon , 2013 QCCQ 11 765); [ 14 ] WHEREAS , as stated by the Court in Syndicat de la copropriété Havre du St-Laurent v.

Neill, 2012 QCCQ 3822 , at paragraphs 21 and 22 thereof: [21] Un copropriétaire ne peut se faire justice lui-même en refusant de payer ses frais de copropriété prétextant que la Copropriété n'est pas gérée comme il souhaiterait qu'elle le soit. [22] Si un copropriétaire considère que ses droits ne sont pas respectés, il peut, en fonction de la nature de ceux-ci, entreprendre les démarches légales afin d'en obtenir le respect.

Chose certaine, le refus de payer ses frais de copropriété n'est définitivement pas une option acceptable en l'espèce. [ 15 ] WHEREAS , with regards to the extrajudicial fees and disbursements claimed, totalling over $21,00.00, they are owed in part by defendant, in virtue of par. 106.14, inter alia, of agreement P-1; [ 16 ] GIVEN , however, that these fees and disbursements must be reasonable ( Syndicat de la copropriété Havre du Saint-Laurent, Phase II v.

Neill , 2022 QCCQ 4153 , at paragraphs 78 ff.); [ 17 ] WHEREAS , in its discretion, the Court hereby reduces the amount claimed to $13,000, including taxes and disbursements, taking into account:

a) the amount of the claim;

b) the amount of the late fees;

c) the hourly rates invoiced;

d) the fact that attorney « XX » was unable to finish the file, thereby requiring that another lawyer take over and thereby increasing labor costs;

e) the invoicing of certain administrative tasks done by lawyers; but also keeping in mind that defendant has a history of defaulting on her payments and is therefore fully cognizant of the consequences and costs that her defaults may entail; [ 18 ] WHEREAS , today, plaintiffs are not seeking defendant’s expulsion from the premises and the sale of her unit, under judicial authority, preferring to give her another chance, with a view to allow her to willfully pay the amount she will be ordered to pay by this Court, in the delay determined by the Court, failing which plaintiffs shall have no alternative but to move ahead with the remaining portion of their originating motion; WHEREFORE, THE COURT HEREBY: GRANTS the application in part; TAKES COGNIZANCE of defendant’s admissions, and ORDERS defendant to abide by the terms thereof and pay the sum of $ 12 019.38 to plaintiffs, solidarily, by certified cheque, wire transfer or money order, made to the order of De Grandpré Jolicoeur s.e.n.c.r.l., in trust, by no later than November 1, 2022; ORDERS defendant to pay plaintiffs, solidarily, an additional amount of $21,299.84, plus legal interest, from the date of these presents, and legal costs, the whole by no later than December 1, 2022; RESERVES all of plaintiffs’ rights to proceed with the remaining conclusions of their application, regarding the sale of defendant’s unit under judicial authority and her expulsion, should defendant not abide by the terms of this judgment in its entirety; AUTHORIZES plaintiffs to seize the Court, by contacting the undersigned, by email, directly, if need be, with a view to proceed with the rest of their originating application, subject to prior written notification to defendant. __________________________________ ELIANA MARENGO, J.C.Q.

Me Clément Lucas

DE GRANDPRÉ JOLICOEUR S.E.N.C.R.L. Lawyers for plaintiffs Erica Tryansky Self-represented Dates of hearing: September 22 and 23, 2022. [1] Le jugement a été rendu séance tenante. Comme le permet la Cour d’appel dans Kellogg’s Company of Canada c. Le procureur général de la province de Québec , [1978] C.A. 258 , pp. 259-260 , le Tribunal se réserve le droit, au moment de rendre son jugement, de modifier, d’amplifier et de remanier les motifs. La soussignée leur apporte des modifications mineures uniquement pour en améliorer la présentation et la compréhension.