2017 QCCQ 195, 2017 QCCQ 195

Aaron c. Gordon 2017 QCCQ 195 COUR DU QUÉBEC « Division des petites créances » CANADA PROVINCE DE QUÉBEC DISTRICT DE MONTRÉAL « Chambre civile » N° : 500-32-147998-159 Date 13 janvier 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ SOUS LA PRÉSIDENCE DE L’HONORABLE DANIEL DORTÉLUS ______________________________________________________________________ ALBERT AARON -et- MONA AARON Demandeurs c.

ROBERT GORDON -et- MARTIN GORDON Défendeurs ______________________________________________________________________ JUGEMENT ______________________________________________________________________ 1. LE LITIGE [ 1 ] Les demandeurs, M. Albert et Mme Mona Aaron poursuivent les défendeurs, MM. Robert Gordon et Martin Gordon pour la somme de 15 000 $ à

titre de dommages, qu’ils détaillent dans leur demande comme suit : • Perte de jouissance paisible de leur espace de stationnement 8 000 $; • Dommages moraux 3 500 $; • Dommages punitifs 3 500 $. [ 2 ] Ils reprochent aux défendeurs, dont l’espace de stationnement est situé à côté de leur espace de stationnement, d’avoir laissé stationné un véhicule de type fourgonnette à 6 po de la ligne séparatrice des deux espaces de stationnement durant une période allant de décembre 2013 à septembre 2015.

Ils leur reprochent aussi d’avoir imbibé de boue ou saleté la façade arrière du véhicule et le côté du véhicule qui fait face à leur espace de stationnement, le tout dans le but de les importuner et de les nuire. [ 3 ] Il en a résulté que Mme Aaron, qui a eu d’énormes difficultés à accéder à son stationnement, a dû se résigner à stationner son véhicule à un autre endroit. [ 4 ] La situation a forcé l’Association des copropriétaires à modifier la Déclaration de copropriété pour faire cesser les agissements abusifs des défendeurs. [ 5 ] Les défendeurs contestent la réclamation.

Ils plaident qu’ils avaient pleinement le droit de stationner le véhicule comme ils l’ont fait à l’intérieur des limites de leur espace de stationnement. [ 6 ] Ils plaident subsidiairement que les dommages réclamés sont nettement exagérés. 2.

LES FAITS PERTINENTS 2.1 Preuve en demande [ 7 ] Avant d’intenter le présent recours, M. et Mme Aaron ont fait parvenir aux défendeurs, par l’entremise de leurs avocats, le 18 juin 2015, une mise en demeure qui relate les faits du litige. [ 8 ] Le Tribunal estime utile de reproduire un extrait de ladite mise en demeure : « We are the attorneys for Mr. and Mrs, Albert Aaron who are the co-owners of the exclusive portion known as Parking Space B12 (legally described as Lot No. 1564827, Cadastre of Quebec, Registration Division of Montreal) in the condominium building known as Le Rothchild Phase II, located at [...], Cote Saint-Luc, QC (the " Building ").

We write to you as the registered co-owners of the exclusive portion known as Parking Space B11 (legally described as Lot No.

1564826, Cadastre of Quebec, Registration Division of Montreal). Parking Spaces B11 and B12 are adjacent parking spaces which are separated by a parking stripe. You and the Aarons are therefore adjacent property owners and immediate parking space neighbours. You individually and solidarily owe obligations as a co-owner and a neighbour to Mr. and Mrs. Aaron under the Declaration of Co-Ownership dated October 28, 1988 and registered at the Montreal Registry Office under Reg.

No. 4086961, as amended (the " Declaration of Co-Ownership "), Rothchild Condominium Phase II — Condominium Rules and Regulations For Residents (Co-owners and Tenants), as amended (the " Building Regulations "), the Civil Code of Quebec and the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms , regarding the manner in which you use or occupy your property — specifically, Parking Space B11.

a) Background 1 Mr. and Mrs. Aaron have been co-owners of the Building since they purchased their unit in July 1992. They purchased Parking Space B12 in August 1994. They have lived in the Building for nearly 23 years. 2. Mr. Aaron is presently 83 years old. 3. Mrs. Aaron has just turned 80 as of May 2015. 4. Since becoming a co-owner in 1994, Parking Space B12 is used by Mrs. Aaron to park her car. Mrs. Aaron has always driven a mid-sized car (although the specific car model has changed from time to time). 5. Mr.

Aaron is a past president and currently one of the administrators of the Syndicat des coproprietaires Le Rothchild Phase II (the "Condo Association"). 6. During Mr. Aaron's term as president as well as an administrator of the Condo Association, and over the years, the Condo Association has been and continues to be obliged to send formal notices (by the Condo Association, the Property Manager and the Condo Association's lawyers) to Robert Gordon as the co-owner-occupant of Apt. 701, for his contravention of various provisions of the Declaration of Co-Ownership and the Building Regulations.

Moreover, the Condo Association has had to take legal action against Robert Gordon before the courts (CSM 500-17-065210-117). 7.

As a result of the Condo Association carrying out its powers and duties to ensure that co-owners comply with the express provisions as well as the spirit of the Declaration of Co-Ownership and the Building Regulations (see without limitation, pp. 36-43 of the Declaration of Co-Ownership), and to promote the respect of good neighbourly conduct between co-owners in matters concerning his use and occupation of Apt. 701 and his co-owned parking spaces in the Building, relations have deteriorated between Robert Gordon and the Condo Association and Robert Gordon has extended his animosity towards the Condo Association's administrators on a personal basis.

b) Abuse of Rights Since 2013, Robert Gordon has deliberately singled out Mr. and Mrs. Aaron for what can only be viewed as an abuse of rights. 1. Robert Gordon has stated to the Condo Association and the Property Manager that he is the person using Parking Space B11 which is co-owned by him and Martin Gordon. 2. Robert Gordon knows that Parking Space B12 belongs to Mr. and Mrs. Aaron. 3. In the midst of the court proceedings between the Condo Association and Robert Gordon that were pending in 2013, a Mustang was parked in Parking Space B11 in a manner which obstructed the use of Parking Space B12.

When asked by the Condo Association and the Property Manager to park the Mustang so it would not obstruct Parking Space B12, Robert Gordon refused. Eventually, the Mustang was no longer parked in Parking Space B11. We refer you to the minutes of the General Meeting of Co-Owners held July 10, 2013 (copy hereto attached as

Schedule A). 4. In late December 2013, a minivan (Grand Caravan, Quebec Licence Plate M87 GDY) (the " Van ")) was parked in Parking Space B11. 5. The Van is parked at a severe angle very close to the front of the parking stripe that separates Parking Spaces B11 and B12. The Van has remained parked this way since at least January 1, 2014. Attached are copies of photos taken by Mr. Aaron (hereto attached as

Schedule B):

a) after 2 months : on March 8 and 20, 2014 which show the Van as parked in Parking Space B11 since at least January 1, 2014, and with Mrs. Aaron's car in Parking Space B12 which is forced to be parked very wide away from the dividing parking stripe and close to the support column;

b) after 9 months : on September 28, 2014 which show the Van in the exact same position in Parking Space B11 since at least January 1, 2014, and as photographed on March 8, 2014; and

c) after 16 months : on April 29, 2015 which show the Van (now with a deflated tire) in the exact same position in Parking Space B11 since at least January 1, 2014, and as photographed over a year ago on March 8, 2014. 6. Mr. and Mrs. Aaron are informed that the Van was parked in Parking Space B11 by Robert Gordon because it is next to Parking Space B12 owned by Mr. and Mrs. Aaron, and for the deliberate and sole purpose of causing nuisance to Mr. Aaron because of his role in the Condo Association's legal disputes with Robert Gordon.

Attached is a copy of the sworn statement dated June 2, 2015 from Rudy GIUST, the Building doorman (attached hereto as

Schedule C). Upon being informed by Mr. and Mrs. Aaron about the serious obstruction to their use of Parking Space B12 because of the Van's angled parking essentially next to the front of the dividing parking stripe, the Condo Association and the Property Manager have repeatedly asked Robert Gordon, as one of the co-owners of Parking Space B11, to park the Van properly in a centred position between the parking stripes of Parking Space B11 so that the Van does not obstruct the ingress and egress of Parking Space B12. These numerous requests addressed to Robert Gordon have been completely ignored.

Attached is a copy of the sworn statement dated May 28, 2015 from Zahava GRINFELD, the Building's Property Manager (attached hereto as

Schedule D). 8. Prior to the Van being placed in such a deliberately obstructive manner in Parking Space B11, Mrs. Aaron was able to execute the parking maneuvers into Parking Space B12 without any incident or damage to herself, her own car, any nearby cars and the Building walls and support columns in the underground parking level. 9. The position of the Van as parked in Parking Space B11 has created a hazardous situation for Mrs. Aaron seeking to park her car in Parking Space B12.

There are multiple maneuvers needed to park a mid-sized car into Parking Space B12 because of the constraints of the concrete wall and other parking spaces with cars next to it as well as the short parking corridor. All of this is compounded and rendered much more difficult by the height of the Van which blocks the sight lines to Parking Space B12 and the support column next to it, and the slant of the Van so close to the dividing parking stripe which significantly reduces the room to maneuver a car.

Attached is a copy of the architect report dated June 16, 2015 with accompanying plans and photographs prepared by Mitch Herscovitch, Architect (FDS Design) (attached hereto as

Schedule E). 10. This situation with the Van has created great anxiety and stress for Mrs. Aaron, to the point that she is rendered incapable of parking in Parking Space B12 for fear of an accident not just to her car but hitting the Van, other cars, the concrete wall and support column, but also possible bodily injury to herself in any impact. This has greatly affected Mrs. Aaron's sense of confidence and independence because she had been previously able to maintain her autonomy by driving herself to her appointments and for daily errands.

She has lost her regular routine and ability to come and go out of her home and the Building by car as and whenever she so desired. Mrs. Aaron is very distressed by this prolonged situation as a result. She no longer parks in Parking Space B12. 11. The Van has been left in Parking Space B11 since the end of December 2013. The Van remains there to this day with two flat tires. Using January 1, 2014 as a start date for discussion purposes, this means the Van has been left as storage in Parking Space B11 for a period of eighteen (18) months as at June 30, 2015. 12. Mr. and Mrs.

Aaron have lost normal use and peaceful enjoyment of their property and part of their home, namely Parking Space B12, as a result of the Van being deliberately and improperly parked in Parking Space B11 to their prejudice and in bad faith by Robert Gordon. They have been forced to leave Parking Space B12 empty for all practical purposes.

c) Violation of the Declaration of Co-ownership, the Building Regulations, the Civil Code of Quebec and the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms As co-owners of Parking Space B11, you have the right to park your car in your parking space. However, the right of ownership is not absolute. There are limits because the law requires that an owner exercises his right of ownership while respecting the rights of others - this includes your neighbours, being Mr. and Mrs. Aaron as the co-owners of Parking Space B12. The Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms provide the following fundamental rights: "1.

Every human being has a right to life, and to personal security, inviolability and freedom. 6. Every person has a right to the peaceful enjoyment and free disposition of his property, except to the extent provided by law." The violation of these protected fundamental rights is sanctioned as follows: "49. Any unlawful interference with any right or freedom recognized by this Charter entitles the victim to obtain the cessation of such interference and compensation for the moral or material prejudice resulting therefrom.

In case of unlawful and intentional interference, the tribunal may, in addition, condemn the person guilty of it to punitive damages." The Civil Code of Quebec provides that: '976.

Neighbours shall suffer the normal neighbourhood annoyances that are not beyond the limit of tolerance they owe each other, according to the nature or location of their land or local custom." In the context of a residential condominium building, there are also limits and a code of conduct set out in the Declaration of Co- Ownership and the Building Regulations which you are obliged and have undertaken to respect as part of your obligations as co-owners. Pertinent provisions of the Declaration of Co-Ownership: pp. 23-24: "VI. (

B) USE OF EXCLUSIVE PORTIONS PARKING SPACES (INDOOR) (

v) No vehicle may be parked in a manner as to impede or prevent ready access to another co-owner's parking space. The co-owners,

their employees, servants, agents, visitors, licensees and the co-owner's family and all other persons using the parking space will obey all the parking regulations and any other traffic regulations presently in force and those promulgated in the future for the safety, comfort and convenience of the owners." Pertinent provisions of the Building Regulations: "11.0 GARAGE 11.4 No vehicle may be parked in a manner as to impede or prevent another resident ready access to his own parking area. 16.0 GOODWILL 16.1 The security and peaceful environment of this condo depends on the will and determination of each resident (owner or tenant) to observe and enforce these rules. 16.2 Each resident's goodwill and desire for mutual recognition and appreciation of his/her rights and responsibilities create the intangible ambiance for a quality lifestyle. 16.3 FINAL NOTE Rules and their observance create the condition of a civilized society and community.

Your directors trust you will enable everyone to enjoy a high standard of residency." It is clear the facts set out above show a total and intentional disregard for reasonable conduct as expected from neighbouring owners — and more especially, co-owners in a residential condominium building, and a deliberate course of action by Robert Gordon as one of the co-owners of Parking Space B11 to cause serious prejudice to Mr. and Mrs. Aaron who he knows to be (

a) the neighbouring owners of Parking Space B12 and (

b) an elderly couple and long-time resident co-owners in the Building. The Van as parked in Parking Space B11 to obstruct Parking Space B12 for nearly 18 months and the declared motivation by Robert Gordon to cause trouble for the Condo Association generally and to Mr. Aaron (as a past president and Condo Association administrator) specifically, is a situation that is not to be tolerated since it exceeds any normal neighbourhood inconveniences ( Art. 976 Civil Code of Quebec ). The Van is in effect being used by Robert Gordon as a form of continued harassment and intimidation being directed at Mr. and Mrs.

Aaron, to deprive them of their right to peaceful enjoyment and normal use of their property Parking Space B12 which is protected by the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedom and the whole in flagrant violation of the obligations of a co-owner under the Declaration of Co-Ownership and the Building Regulations. In all respects, there exist an abuse of rights and intended malice by Robert Gordon.

Robert Gordon's abusive use of Parking Space B11 by parking the Van so as to deliberately obstruct the normal use of Parking Space B12, and refusing to comply with reasonable and repeated requests to park the Van properly, constitutes a fault that commenced since at least January 1, 2014 and which continues to the present date. As all co-owners are responsible for the use and occupation of the co-owned property as regards third parties, such illegal conduct renders both Robert Gordon and Martin Gordon as co-owners of Parking Space B11 solidarity liable for damages to Mr. and Mrs. Aaron.

Remedial Action You are hereby summoned to immediately park the Van and any other vehicle in Parking Space B11 so that the parked vehicle position is centred between the vertical parking stripes of Parking Space B11 and behind the front horizontal (unstriped) line of Parking Space B11, and to avoid the obstruction in whatsoever manner (physical, angle, height, and sight lines) for normal and ready access to Parking Space B12. Damages In addition, Mr. and Mrs.

Aaron are entitled to damages of not less than $15,000.00, including without limitation, to compensate for the continued loss of use of their property Parking Space B12, as well as moral and punitive damages from you solidarily as co-owners of Parking Space B11, for the intentional violation of their rights and the harm suffered from your abusive exercise of your rights.

Should payment of this amount to De Grandpre Chait (in trust) not be received by latest July 31, 2015, please be advised that formal action will be taken without further notice or delay, and at your entire costs including extrajudicial fees and expert costs. This letter is written to you under the express reserve of the rights and recourses of Mr. and Mrs.

Aaron, including without limitation, for injunctive relief. » [ 9 ] Dans leur Demande, M. et Mme Aaron reprennent essentiellement ces mêmes faits qu’ils ont relatés à l’audience. [ 10 ] Madame Aaron précise que suite à l’installation de la fourgonnette à 6 po de la ligne séparatrice, en décembre 2013, elle éprouve de sérieuses difficultés pour entrer et sortir de son espace de stationnement. [ 11 ] Elle a supplié M.

Robert Gordon de déplacer un peu le véhicule à l’intérieur de son espace de stationnement, il a catégoriquement refusé de coopérer. [ 12 ] Vers la fin du mois de septembre 2014, elle constate que de la boue est appliquée sur la façade arrière de la fourgonnette et du côté qui donne sur son espace de stationnement. Elle produit en preuve les photos qu’elle a prises.

[ 13 ] Madame Aaron suggère que la fourgonnette a été badigeonnée de boue et de saleté sur place, car il y avait une crevaison à un pneu arrière depuis décembre 2013 et le véhicule n’a pas circulé depuis. [ 14 ] Elle attire l’attention du Tribunal sur le fait que l’autre côté du véhicule est demeuré propre. [ 15 ] L’accès à son espace de stationnement durant l’hiver est très difficile, car elle doit faire plus de manœuvres afin d’éviter d’accrocher la fourgonnette des défendeurs. [ 16 ] En 2015, les demandeurs retiennent les services de l’architecte, Mitchel Herscovitch, qui a préparé un plan de localisation de l’espace des deux stationnements et de l’espace occupé par la fourgonnette. [ 17 ] Dans son rapport, daté du 16 juin 2016, M.

Herscovitch indique : « Parking space B12 faces a concrete wall and parking spaces B18 and B19. There is a structural column at the front which divides parking spaces B12 and B13. A driver trying to enter and park in parking space B12 has to avoid damaging not only his car but cars parked in parking spaces B11, B18 and B19, the support column dividing parking spaces B12 and B13 as well as the concrete wall.

The minivan in parking space B11 is parked at a severe angle at the front of the parking stripe dividing parking spaces B11 and B12, with just approximately 6 1/8 inches from the bumper of the minivan to the front of parking space B12. This is contrasted with the minivan being at a distance of almost 3 feet (2 feet 9 inches) on the side of support column dividing parking spaces B10 and B11. Compared to a vehicle parked in a centered manner between the lines, the minivan, as parked in parking space B11, effectively reduces the width available to the owner of parking space B12 to maneuver into her parking spot. Mr.

Aaron mentioned that the minivan has been parked as such since January 2014. As such, the minivan as parked in parking space B11 is, in my opinion, creating a hazardous situation for a driver trying to enter and park in parking space B12. » [ 18 ] Dans son témoignage devant la cour, M.

Herscovitch reprend essentiellement les mêmes observations et commente les photos et le plan annexés à son rapport. [ 19 ] Monsieur Albert Aaron affirme qu’il était exaspéré face à la situation et a dû menacer de recours judiciaire le Syndicat de la copropriété afin de le forcer à prendre les mesures pour faire cesser l’abus des défendeurs. [ 20 ] Les interventions du Syndicat de copropriété auprès des défendeurs sont ignorées par ces derniers qui ont maintenu leur position, voulant qu’ils sont en droit de laisser le véhicule dans leur espace de stationnement comme ils l’ont fait. [ 21 ] Lors de l’assemblée générale, tenue le 15 juin 2015, deux résolutions ont été adoptées pour modifier la déclaration de copropriété afin d’inclure entre autres les clauses suivantes : • Any vehicule that is presumed not to be in good operating condition can be towed at the discretion of the Board; • Any vehicule that is parked in such manner so as to impede or prevent ready access to another co-owner can be towed at the discretion of the Board; • Any vehicule that does not conform to the declaration can be towed at the discretion of the Board. [ 22 ] Suite à l’entrée en vigueur de la déclaration de copropriété amendée, le Syndicat de copropriété transmet une mise en demeure aux défendeurs qui ont corrigé la situation en déplaçant la fourgonnette d’environ 6 po, vers le centre de leur espace de stationnement. [ 23 ] Monsieur et Madame Aaron affirment qu’ils ont été grandement affectés par les agissements des Gordon, qui ont duré près de deux ans. [ 24 ] Ils demandent des dommages pour perte de jouissance de leur espace de stationnement, des dommages moraux et des dommages punitifs. [ 25 ] Monsieur Aaron suggère que M.

R. Gordon aurait agi comme il l’a fait en représailles, car antérieurement, alors qu’il agissait à

titre de président du Syndicat, il a entrepris des recours contre lui pour le contraindre de respecter les dispositions de la déclaration de copropriété. [ 26 ] Monsieur R. Gordon représente à l’audience le codéfendeur, Martin Gordon.

Il affirme que c’est au mois de janvier 2014 qu’il a acheté la fourgonnette, qui est stationnée dans leur stationnement à compter de la troisième semaine de janvier 2014. [ 27 ] Il a depuis utilisé la fourgonnette à quelques reprises pour effectuer des petits déménagements, soit deux fois en février 2014 et une fois durant l’été pour aider un ami. [ 28 ] Il suggère que la fourgonnette a été éclaboussée en circulant sur la route, il ne se souvient pas exactement quand. [ 29 ] Il a tenté d’enlever la boue avec une brosse de déneigement pour auto, ce qui explique l’apparence de badigeonnage. [ 30 ] Monsieur Gordon admet que la fourgonnette n’a pas circulé de septembre 2014 à septembre 2015 en raison d’une crevaison d’un pneu arrière. [ 31 ] Il explique qu’il était en droit de laisser la fourgonnette là où il se trouvait à l’intérieur des limites de son espace de stationnement.

[ 32 ] Monsieur Gordon réitère la même position contenue dans la lettre du 3 juillet 2015 dans laquelle leur avocat indique : « Our clients, Mr. Robert Gordon & Mr. Martin Gordon, have forwarded your demand letter of June 18th, 2015, to our offices for attention and reply and our clients vigorously deny the content of said demand letter. Firstly, Mr. Martin Gordon is only a part-owner of the Condominium and does not live there, and the issues your clients have concern only Mr. Robert Gordon. There is no need here to try and confuse the lawsuit between the Condo Association and Mr. Gordon.

The lawsuit was settled and the parties signed a mutual release and transaction. The fact that Mr. Aaron was and continues to be the President of the Condo Association is completely irrelevant to the matter at hand. Our client informs us that the van is legally parked between the lines which outline a parking spot of which he is the lawful owner. Contrary to your pretention, our client has no legal obligation to park the van in a position that is more convenient to your clients. Moreover, we are informed that Mrs.

Aaron was able to park her car in spot B11 from January 2014, when our client acquired the van, until May 2015, when she suddenly started parking elsewhere out of her volition. While your client may feel that our client has singled them out "for an abuse of rights", ironically, our client has the same sentiment. Our client contends that he has been singled out by the Condo Board on numerous occasions for supposed violations of the rules, yet the Condo Board is happy to look the other way when its own members violate the rules themselves.

Moreover, the supposed damages that your clients are attempting to extract from our client are completely fictitious and exaggerated. In truth, your clients have suffered no damages whatsoever from the manner in which our client chooses to park his vehicle, which is his strict right.

In view of the foregoing, do be advised that in the event that your client proceeds to institute abusive legal proceedings, same will be vigorously contested, and our client hereby reserves all of his rights to counter-claim for damages for abuse of the legal process, including recovery of all extra-judicial fees incurred. » [ 33 ] Quant aux dommages réclamés, M. Gordon soulève qu’ils sont nettement exagérés. 3. ANALYSE ET MOTIFS Questions en litige [ 34 ] Afin de trancher ce litige, les principales questions que le Tribunal doit traiter sont les suivantes : a.

Les défendeurs ont-ils abusé de leur droit de propriété de manière à engager leur responsabilité envers les demandeurs ? b. Dans l'affirmative, à quel montant les demandeurs ont droit à

titre de dommages moraux ? c. Les critères sont-ils rencontrés pour l’octroi de dommages punitifs ? Principes de droit applicables [ 35 ] Il est utile de reproduire les dispositions pertinentes du Code civil du Québec (C.c.Q . ) [1] applicables en l'espèce. « 6. Toute personne est tenue d'exercer ses droits civils selon les exigences de la bonne foi. 7. Aucun droit ne peut être exercé en vue de nuire à autrui ou d'une manière excessive et déraisonnable, allant ainsi à l'encontre des exigences de la bonne foi. […] 976.

Les voisins doivent accepter les inconvénients normaux du voisinage qui n'excèdent pas les limites de la tolérance qu'ils se doivent, suivant la nature ou la situation de leurs fonds, ou suivant les usages locaux. 1457. Toute personne a le devoir de respecter les règles de conduite qui, suivant les circonstances, les usages ou la loi, s'imposent à elle, de manière à ne pas causer de préjudice à autrui. Elle est, lorsqu'elle est douée de raison et qu'elle manque à ce devoir, responsable du préjudice qu'elle cause par cette faute à autrui et tenue de réparer ce préjudice, qu'il soit corporel, moral ou matériel.

Elle est aussi tenue, en certains cas, de réparer le préjudice causé à autrui par le fait ou la faute d'une autre personne ou par le fait des biens qu'elle a sous sa garde. » [ 36 ] Il y a lieu d’identifier les principes qui, selon la jurisprudence, doivent guider le Tribunal dans le cadre de ce litige de troubles de voisinage. [ 37 ] Dans un jugement rendu en 2001 dans la cause Balit c. Faure [2] , l’Honorable Nicole Duval Hesler, jadis de la Cour Supérieure, maintenant à la Cour d’appel, écrit : « 15 Les êtres humains sont appelés à vivre en société et doivent subir les inconvénients normaux du voisinage.

Les législateur/es ont

d'ailleurs codifié cette obligation à l'

article 976 C.c.Q. Il s'agit d'une obligation qui existe indépendamment de toute notion d'obligation contractuelle ou de faute extra contractuelle. En d'autres termes, les troubles de voisinage font maintenant l'objet d'un régime particulier qui exclut la notion de faute au sens traditionnel. 16 Déjà, Savatier reconnaissait que la responsabilité entre voisins pouvait naître sans faute, bien qu'exceptionnellement.

Il expliquait qu'elle «se rapporte à un état de nécessité, qui fait disparaître la faute de l'agent, mais non, pour la victime, le droit à réparation.» 1 17 Monsieur le juge Mayrand faisait observer dans Reitz c.

Issie Katz que l'ancien droit français «a toujours reconnu l'obligation du propriétaire de ne pas nuire à ses voisins, et son obligation de l'indemniser lorsqu'il lui arrive de lui causer un préjudice excessif.» 2 18 C'est que le droit d'un propriétaire d'user de sa chose « se trouve nécessairement limité par l'obligation de laisser au voisin la faculté de jouir aussi de sa propriété.» 3 Dans un contexte de voisinage, les limitations à l'exercice du droit de propriété s'imposent en quelque sorte d'elles-mêmes, dans l'intérêt réciproque des propriétaires. » (Références de bas de pages omises) [ 38 ] Au sujet de l’application de l’

article 976 C.c.Q. , [3] l’auteur Michel Gagné écrit : « Le recours pour troubles de voisinage nécessite l’alliance de trois conditions fondamentales.

Les parties à ce recours doivent d’abord être des voisins, les troubles doivent provenir de l’exercice du droit de propriété et, enfin, il faut démontrer qu’il en résulte des inconvénients anormaux. » [ 39 ] Au sujet de la notion d’abus de droit en matière de troubles de voisinage, l’auteur Michel Gagné écrit : « La règle de l’abus de droit trouve sa source dans les principes relatifs à la responsabilité civile, et plus particulièrement dans les articles 6 , 7 , 1375 et 1457 C.c.Q. La notion d’abus de droit est d’application générale en droit civil et n’est pas restreinte au droit de propriété.

Abuser de son droit de propriété, c’est l’exercer de manière à nuire à autrui ou d’une manière excessive et déraisonnable allant à l’encontre des exigences de la bonne foi. L’abus de droit dénote parfois une intention malveillante, parfois une insouciance à l’égard d’autrui. L’exercice du droit de propriété devient abusif lorsqu’il constitue un exercice mauvais, incorrect ou encore impropre. 7 Le recours pour troubles de voisinage est à la fois un recours distinct fondé sur l’

article 976 C.c.Q. , mais aussi le prolongement, dans le cadre de l’exercice du droit de propriété, du recours général pour abus de droit, dans un contexte où l’intention de nuire est absente. Ici, l’exercice du droit de propriété est en soit utile et accompli sans intention malicieuse, mais le propriétaire est responsable lorsque l’exercice de son droit de propriété s’avère une source d’inconvénients anormaux ou inhabituels causant un préjudice à son voisin. » (Référence de bas de page omise) [ 40 ] L’extrait suivant du jugement dans la cause Larue c .

TVA Productions inc. [4] , rendu en 2011, par la Cour supérieure sous la plume de l’Honorable Claude Dallaire fait une mise à jour des principes établis par la jurisprudence pour l’application de la notion de troubles de voisinage : « [179] C'est donc dire que le voisin lésé n'a plus à démontrer que son voisin a commis une faute pour que la responsabilité du voisin « fautif » soit retenue. [180] C'est le résultat créé par la conduite de ce voisin qui doit faire l'objet de l'analyse que doit effectuer le Tribunal. [181] L'analyse d'une telle réclamation doit se faire en ayant à l'esprit le postulat suivant : les voisins sont tenus d'accepter les inconvénients normaux du voisinage, à l'exception de ceux que le Tribunal à qui ils les inconvénients sont soumis qualifie d'anormaux parce qu'ils excèdent les limites de la tolérance. […] [183] L'arrêt Ciment St-Laurent a établi que l'

article 976 C.c.Q. crée une responsabilité objective 66 . [184] C'est donc dire que l'évaluation des inconvénients ne se fait pas selon ce qu'en pense un demandeur particulier, mais selon ce qu'une personne raisonnable placée dans les mêmes circonstances en penserait 67 . [185] Cela évite qu'un demandeur intransigeant à tous égards et se déclare incommodé par tous les faits et gestes de son voisin et réussisse automatiquement son recours du simple fait qu'il n'a aucune tolérance à l'égard de quoi que ce soit. [186] Cela étant dit, il ne faut pas nécessairement rejeter le recours d'une personne uniquement au motif que personne d'autre ne s'est plaint des mêmes inconvénients. [187] Chaque cas est donc un cas d'espèce et doit être tranché en ayant à l'esprit toutes les circonstances particulières révélées par la preuve 68 . » (Références de bas de pages omises) Les défendeurs ont-ils abusé de leur droit de propriété de manière à engager leur responsabilité envers les demandeurs ?

[ 41 ] L’application des principes mentionnés précédemment à la trame factuelle amène à une réponse affirmative à cette question, ce pour les raisons qui suivent. [ 42 ] Le trouble dont il est question est à la fois grave, récurrent et il dépasse le seuil de normalité de l’

article 976 C.c.Q. . [ 43 ] Il ressort de la preuve que l’endroit précis où M.

Robert Gordon a laissé stationner la fourgonnette et la façon qu’il l’a stationné limitait substantiellement l’accès des demandeurs à leur espace de stationnement. [ 44 ] Il a refusé de déplacer la fourgonnette de quelques pouces vers le centre de son espace de stationnement, ignorant les demandes des demandeurs et des administrateurs de la Copropriété. [ 45 ] L’intransigeance dont il a fait preuve a duré plus d’un an et a nécessité des modifications à la déclaration de copropriété pour faire cesser ses agissements. [ 46 ] Il y a preuve suffisante pour démontrer que les inconvénients occasionnés par l’intransigeance de M.

R. Gordon sont excessifs, c’est ce qu’aurait compris une personne raisonnable placée dans les mêmes circonstances. [ 47 ] Les autres copropriétaires ont voté en assemblée générale des résolutions pour faire cesser les agissements de M. Gordon, ce qui supporte la position des demandeurs, voulant qu’il ait exercé de manière abusive son droit de propriété. [ 48 ] L’argument de M. R.

Gordon, voulant que le véhicule était stationné à l’intérieur des limites de son espace de stationnement, ne peut pas bonifier sa position, car en regard de l’intransigeance dont il a fait montre, un tel argument supporte la position des demandeurs voulant qu’il ait agi avec mauvaise foi. [ 49 ] Il en est de même pour son argument, voulant qu’il n’ait pas agi par vengeance, contrairement à ce qu’a déclaré un portier dont il a enregistré à son insu une conversation récente dans laquelle il nie ce fait.

La preuve de l’intention malveillante n’est pas requise pour démontrer l’abus de droit en l’espèce. [ 50 ] Il est en preuve que pour corriger la situation, M. R. Gordon n’a eu qu’à déplacer le véhicule d’environ de 6 po, suite à la mise en demeure du syndicat en septembre 2015, qui s’apprêtait à appliquer la déclaration de copropriété amendée. [ 51 ] Le Tribunal retient que laisser la fourgonnette stationnée durant plus d’un an à seulement 6 po de la ligne séparatrice de l’espace de stationnement des demandeurs constituait des inconvénients anormaux, ce même si aucune faute n’a été commise.

Pourtant, il existait une espace de plusieurs pieds de l’autre côté du véhicule et qu’en général les copropriétaires ne stationnent pas leur véhicule à distance de 6 po de la ligne séparant leur espace de stationnement dans le garage intérieur sous-terrain. [ 52 ] Faut-il rappeler qu’abuser de son droit de propriété, c’est l’exercer de manière à nuire à autrui ou d’une manière excessive et déraisonnable allant à l’encontre des exigences de la bonne foi, c’est ce que les défendeurs ont fait durant plus d’un an, avec insouciance et intransigeance. [ 53 ] Le Tribunal conclu que les critères sont rencontrés pour engager la responsabilité des défendeurs envers les demandeurs. [ 54 ] Il reste maintenant à déterminer le montant des dommages à accorder aux demandeurs.

Dommages pour troubles et inconvénients [ 55 ] Il ressort de la preuve que les demandeurs, des octogénaires, ont eu à subir sur une longue période des inconvénients pour accéder et sortir de leur espace de stationnement à cause de l’intransigeance de M. R. Gordon.

Il en a résulté une certaine perte de jouissance paisible de leur espace de stationnement et surtout des inconvénients qui auraient pu facilement être évités. [ 56 ] En regard de la trame factuelle dont il dispose, en tenant entre autres compte de la nature des inconvénients qui ont été récurrents et occasionnés des préjudices sur une durée de plus d’un an, le Tribunal estime raisonnable d’arbitrer à 4 000 $ le montant à accorder aux demandeurs à

titre de dommages moraux pour troubles et inconvénients. Dommages punitifs [ 57 ] Les dispositions pertinentes de la Charte des droits et libertés de la personne (« la Charte » ) [5] applicables en l'espèce sont les suivantes : « 6. Toute personne a droit à la jouissance paisible et à la libre disposition de ses biens, sauf dans la mesure prévue par la loi. […] 49. Une atteinte illicite à un droit ou à une liberté reconnue par la présente Charte confère à la victime le droit d’obtenir la cessation de cette atteinte et la réparation du préjudice moral ou matériel qui en résulte.

En cas d'atteinte illicite et intentionnelle, le tribunal peut en outre condamner son auteur à des dommages-intérêts punitifs . » [ 58 ] Les principes pour l’octroi de dommages punitifs sont bien établis par la jurisprudence. Dans l’arrêt Métromédia CMR Montréal inc. c.

Johnson [6] , la Cour d’appel enseigne : « [108] La fonction préventive des dommages punitifs est fondamentale ; ils visent un double objectif de punition et dissuasion mais ne peuvent excéder ce qui est suffisant pour atteindre ces objectifs. […] « c'est […] vers l'avenir que le juge doit se tourner pour chiffrer un montant qui empêchera la récidive ». Il ne s'agit pas d'indemniser le demandeur mais de punir le défendeur comme il le mérite, de le décourager, lui et d'autres, d'agir ainsi à l'avenir et d'exprimer la réprobation de tous à l'égard de tels événements . »

(Soulignements ajoutés) [ 59 ] Selon la Cour suprême, dans l’arrêt de Montigny c. Brossard (Succession) [7] : « [47] Contrairement aux dommages compensatoires, dont la raison d’être est la réparation du préjudice résultant d’une faute, les dommages exemplaires existent, quant à eux, pour une autre fin. L’octroi de ces dommages a pour but de marquer la désapprobation particulière dont la conduite visée fait l’objet.

Il est rattaché à l’appréciation judiciaire d’une conduite, non à la mesure des indemnités destinées à réparer un préjudice réel, pécuniaire ou non . […] » (Soulignements ajoutés) [ 60 ] La preuve présentée démontre de manière prépondérante l'existence de violation du droit garanti par l'

article 6 de la Charte . De plus, en ce qui concerne le défendeur Robert Gordon, il y a preuve suffisante d’ atteinte illicite et intentionnelle de ce droit garanti par la Charte qui est d’ordre public. En conséquence, la responsabilité du défendeur Robert Gordon est engagée pour l'octroi des dommages exemplaires en vertu de l'

article 49 de la Charte , que le Tribunal arbitre à 1 000 $. [ 61 ] Quant au codéfendeur Martin Gordon, le seul fait qu’il soit propriétaire ne suffit pas pour engager sa responsabilité pour des dommages punitifs. Les deux critères de l' article 49 (2) de la Charte , soit : atteinte illicite et intentionnelle, ne sont pas rencontrés, en conséquence, des dommages punitifs ne peuvent pas être accordés dans son cas. [ 62 ] POUR CES MOTIFS, LE TRIBUNAL : [ 63 ] ACCUEILLE partiellement la demande; [ 64 ] CONDAMNE les défendeurs à payer aux demandeurs à

titre de dommages moraux, la somme de 4 000 $ avec intérêt au taux légal, plus l’indemnité additionnelle prévue à l’

article 1619 du Code civil du Québec à compter de la date de la mise en demeure du 18 juin 2015, plus les frais de justice de 206 $; [ 65 ] CONDAMNE le défendeur Robert Gordon à payer aux demandeurs à

titre de dommages punitifs, la somme de 1 000 $, avec intérêt au taux légal, plus l’indemnité additionnelle prévue à l’

article 1619 du Code civil du Québec à compter de la date du jugement. __________________________________ DANIEL DORTÉLUS, J.C.Q. Date d’audience : 22 novembre 2016 TRANSLATED JUDGMENT Aaron v. Gordon 2017 QCCQ 195 COURT OF QUÉBEC « Small Claims Division » CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF MONTRÉAL « Civil Division » N° : 500-32-147998-159 Date January 13, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF THE HONOURABLE DANIEL DORTÉLUS ______________________________________________________________________ ALBERT AARON -and- MONA AARON Plaintiffs v. ROBERT GORDON -and- MARTIN GORDON Defendants

______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ 1. THE ISSUE [1] The plaintiffs, Mr. Albert and Ms. Mona Aaron are suing the defendants Messrs.

Robert Gordon and Martin Gordon for the amount of $ 15 000 for damages, which they detail in their demand as follow: • Loss of peaceful enjoyment of their parking space $ 8 000; • Moral damages $ 3 500; • Punitive damages $ 3 500. [2] The plaintiffs claim the defendants, whose parking space is located next to theirs, left a van type vehicle parked 6 inches from the parking stripe separating their two parking spaces, during a period ranging from December 2013 to September 2015.

They claim also that the defendants covered with mud or dirt the rear of the vehicle as well as the side of the vehicle facing their parking space, all with the intention of causing nuisance and harming them. [3] As a result, Ms. Aaron, who had great difficulty accessing her parking space, had to resign herself to park her car in another place. [4] The situation forced the Association of co-owners to amend the Declaration of Co-Ownership to stop the defendants’ abusive behavior. [5] The defendants contest the complaint.

They argue that they were fully entitled to park the vehicle as they did within the limits of their parking space. [6] They argue in the alternative that the damages claimed are clearly exaggerated. 2. THE FACTS 2.1 The plaintiffs’ evidence [7] Before taking the present action, Mr. and Mrs. Aaron sent to the defendants, through their lawyers, on June 18, 2015, a demand letter setting out the facts of the case [8] The Court considers it useful to reproduce an extract from the said demand letter: We are the attorneys for Mr. and Mrs.

Albert Aaron who are the co-owners of the exclusive portion known as Parking Space B12 (legally described as Lot No. 1564827, Cadastre of Quebec, Registration Division of Montreal) in the condominium building known as Le Rothchild Phase II, located at [...], Cote Saint-Luc, QC (the " Building "). We write to you as the registered co-owners of the exclusive portion known as Parking Space B11 (legally described as Lot No. 1564826, Cadastre of Quebec, Registration Division of Montreal). Parking Spaces B11 and B12 are adjacent parking spaces which are separated by a parking stripe.

You and the Aarons are therefore adjacent property owners and immediate parking space neighbours. You individually and solidarily owe obligations as a co-owner and a neighbour to Mr. and Mrs. Aaron under the Declaration of Co-Ownership dated October 28, 1988 and registered at the Montreal Registry Office under Reg.

No. 4086961, as amended (the " Declaration of Co-Ownership "), Rothchild Condominium Phase II — Condominium Rules and Regulations For Residents (Co-owners and Tenants), as amended (the " Building Regulations "), the Civil Code of Quebec and the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms , regarding the manner in which you use or occupy your property — specifically, Parking Space B11.

a) Background 1 Mr. and Mrs. Aaron have been co-owners of the Building since they purchased their unit in July 1992. They purchased Parking Space B12 in August 1994. They have lived in the Building for nearly 23 years. 2. Mr. Aaron is presently 83 years old. 3. Mrs. Aaron has just turned 80 as of May 2015. 4. Since becoming a co-owner in 1994, Parking Space B12 is used by Mrs. Aaron to park her car. Mrs. Aaron has always driven a mid-sized car (although the specific car model has changed from time to time). 5. Mr. Aaron is a past president and currently one of the administrators of the Syndicat des coproprietaires Le Rothchild Phase II (the "Condo Association").

6. During Mr. Aaron's term as president as well as an administrator of the Condo Association, and over the years, the Condo Association has been and continues to be obliged to send formal notices (by the Condo Association, the Property Manager and the Condo Association's lawyers) to Robert Gordon as the co-owner-occupant of Apt. 701, for his contravention of various provisions of the Declaration of Co-Ownership and the Building Regulations. Moreover, the Condo Association has had to take legal action against Robert Gordon before the courts (CSM 500-17-065210-117). 7.

As a result of the Condo Association carrying out its powers and duties to ensure that co-owners comply with the express provisions as well as the spirit of the Declaration of Co-Ownership and the Building Regulations (see without limitation, pp. 36-43 of the Declaration of Co-Ownership), and to promote the respect of good neighbourly conduct between co-owners in matters concerning his use and occupation of Apt. 701 and his co-owned parking spaces in the Building, relations have deteriorated between Robert Gordon and the Condo Association and Robert Gordon has extended his animosity towards the Condo Association's administrators on a personal basis.

b) Abuse of Rights Since 2013, Robert Gordon has deliberately singled out Mr. and Mrs. Aaron for what can only be viewed as an abuse of rights. 1. Robert Gordon has stated to the Condo Association and the Property Manager that he is the person using Parking Space B11 which is co-owned by him and Martin Gordon. 2. Robert Gordon knows that Parking Space B12 belongs to Mr. and Mrs. Aaron. 3. In the midst of the court proceedings between the Condo Association and Robert Gordon that were pending in 2013, a Mustang was parked in Parking Space B11 in a manner which obstructed the use of Parking Space B12.

When asked by the Condo Association and the Property Manager to park the Mustang so it would not obstruct Parking Space B12, Robert Gordon refused. Eventually, the Mustang was no longer parked in Parking Space B11. We refer you to the minutes of the General Meeting of Co-Owners held July 10, 2013 (copy hereto attached as

Schedule A). 4. In late December 2013, a minivan (Grand Caravan, Quebec Licence Plate M87 GDY) (the " Van ")) was parked in Parking Space B11. 5. The Van is parked at a severe angle very close to the front of the parking stripe that separates Parking Spaces B11 and B12. The Van has remained parked this way since at least January 1, 2014. Attached are copies of photos taken by Mr. Aaron (hereto attached as

Schedule B):

a) after 2 months : on March 8 and 20, 2014 which show the Van as parked in Parking Space B11 since at least January 1, 2014, and with Mrs. Aaron's car in Parking Space B12 which is forced to be parked very wide away from the dividing parking stripe and close to the support column;

b) after 9 months : on September 28, 2014 which show the Van in the exact same position in Parking Space B11 since at least January 1, 2014, and as photographed on March 8, 2014; and

c) after 16 months : on April 29, 2015 which show the Van (now with a deflated tire) in the exact same position in Parking Space B11 since at least January 1, 2014, and as photographed over a year ago on March 8, 2014. 6. Mr. and Mrs. Aaron are informed that the Van was parked in Parking Space B11 by Robert Gordon because it is next to Parking Space B12 owned by Mr. and Mrs. Aaron, and for the deliberate and sole purpose of causing nuisance to Mr. Aaron because of his role in the Condo Association's legal disputes with Robert Gordon. Attached is a copy of the sworn statement dated June 2, 2015 from Rudy GIUST, the Building doorman (attached hereto as

Schedule C). Upon being informed by Mr. and Mrs. Aaron about the serious obstruction to their use of Parking Space B12 because of the Van's angled parking essentially next to the front of the dividing parking stripe, the Condo Association and the Property Manager have repeatedly asked Robert Gordon, as one of the co-owners of Parking Space B11, to park the Van properly in a centred position between the parking stripes of Parking Space B11 so that the Van does not obstruct the ingress and egress of Parking Space B12. These numerous requests addressed to Robert Gordon have been completely ignored.

Attached is a copy of the sworn statement dated May 28, 2015 from Zahava GRINFELD, the Building's Property Manager (attached hereto as

Schedule D). 8. Prior to the Van being placed in such a deliberately obstructive manner in Parking Space B11, Mrs. Aaron was able to execute the parking maneuvers into Parking Space B12 without any incident or damage to herself, her own car, any nearby cars and the Building walls and support columns in the underground parking level. 9. The position of the Van as parked in Parking Space B11 has created a hazardous situation for Mrs. Aaron seeking to park her car in Parking Space B12.

There are multiple maneuvers needed to park a mid-sized car into Parking Space B12 because of the constraints of the concrete wall and other parking spaces with cars next to it as well as the short parking corridor. All of this is compounded and rendered much more difficult by the height of the Van which blocks the sight lines to Parking Space B12 and the support column next to it, and the slant of the Van so close to the dividing parking stripe which significantly reduces the room to maneuver a car.

Attached is a copy of the architect report dated June 16, 2015 with accompanying plans and photographs prepared by Mitch Herscovitch, Architect (FDS Design) (attached hereto as

Schedule E). 10. This situation with the Van has created great anxiety and stress for Mrs. Aaron, to the point that she is rendered incapable of

parking in Parking Space B12 for fear of an accident not just to her car but hitting the Van, other cars, the concrete wall and support column, but also possible bodily injury to herself in any impact. This has greatly affected Mrs. Aaron's sense of confidence and independence because she had been previously able to maintain her autonomy by driving herself to her appointments and for daily errands. She has lost her regular routine and ability to come and go out of her home and the Building by car as and whenever she so desired. Mrs. Aaron is very distressed by this prolonged situation as a result.

She no longer parks in Parking Space B12. 11. The Van has been left in Parking Space B11 since the end of December 2013. The Van remains there to this day with two flat tires. Using January 1, 2014 as a start date for discussion purposes, this means the Van has been left as storage in Parking Space B11 for a period of eighteen (18) months as at June 30, 2015. 12. Mr. and Mrs.

Aaron have lost normal use and peaceful enjoyment of their property and part of their home, namely Parking Space B12, as a result of the Van being deliberately and improperly parked in Parking Space B11 to their prejudice and in bad faith by Robert Gordon. They have been forced to leave Parking Space B12 empty for all practical purposes.

c) Violation of the Declaration of Co-ownership, the Building Regulations, the Civil Code of Quebec and the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms As co-owners of Parking Space B11, you have the right to park your car in your parking space. However, the right of ownership is not absolute. There are limits because the law requires that an owner exercises his right of ownership while respecting the rights of others - this includes your neighbours, being Mr. and Mrs. Aaron as the co-owners of Parking Space B12. The Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms provide the following fundamental rights: 1.

Every human being has a right to life, and to personal security, inviolability and freedom. 6. Every person has a right to the peaceful enjoyment and free disposition of his property, except to the extent provided by law. The violation of these protected fundamental rights is sanctioned as follows: 49. Any unlawful interference with any right or freedom recognized by this Charter entitles the victim to obtain the cessation of such interference and compensation for the moral or material prejudice resulting therefrom.

In case of unlawful and intentional interference, the tribunal may, in addition, condemn the person guilty of it to punitive damages. The Civil Code of Quebec provides that: 976.

Neighbours shall suffer the normal neighbourhood annoyances that are not beyond the limit of tolerance they owe each other, according to the nature or location of their land or local custom." In the context of a residential condominium building, there are also limits and a code of conduct set out in the Declaration of Co- Ownership and the Building Regulations which you are obliged and have undertaken to respect as part of your obligations as co-owners. Pertinent provisions of the Declaration of Co-Ownership: pp. 23-24: VI. (

B) USE OF EXCLUSIVE PORTIONS PARKING SPACES (INDOOR) (

v) No vehicle may be parked in a manner as to impede or prevent ready access to another co-owner's parking space. The co-owners, their employees, servants, agents, visitors, licensees and the co-owner's family and all other persons using the parking space will obey all the parking regulations and any other traffic regulations presently in force and those promulgated in the future for the safety, comfort and convenience of the owners.

Pertinent provisions of the Building Regulations: 11.0 GARAGE 11.4 No vehicle may be parked in a manner as to impede or prevent another resident ready access to his own parking area. 16.0 GOODWILL 16.1 The security and peaceful environment of this condo depends on the will and determination of each resident (owner or tenant) to observe and enforce these rules. 16.2 Each resident's goodwill and desire for mutual recognition and appreciation of his/her rights and responsibilities create the intangible ambiance for a quality lifestyle. 16.3 FINAL NOTE Rules and their observance create the condition of a civilized society and community.

Your directors trust you will enable everyone to

enjoy a high standard of residency. It is clear the facts set out above show a total and intentional disregard for reasonable conduct as expected from neighbouring owners — and more especially, co-owners in a residential condominium building, and a deliberate course of action by Robert Gordon as one of the co-owners of Parking Space B11 to cause serious prejudice to Mr. and Mrs. Aaron who he knows to be (

a) the neighbouring owners of Parking Space B12 and (

b) an elderly couple and long-time resident co-owners in the Building. The Van as parked in Parking Space B11 to obstruct Parking Space B12 for nearly 18 months and the declared motivation by Robert Gordon to cause trouble for the Condo Association generally and to Mr. Aaron (as a past president and Condo Association administrator) specifically, is a situation that is not to be tolerated since it exceeds any normal neighbourhood inconveniences ( Art. 976 Civil Code of Quebec ). The Van is in effect being used by Robert Gordon as a form of continued harassment and intimidation being directed at Mr. and Mrs.

Aaron, to deprive them of their right to peaceful enjoyment and normal use of their property Parking Space B12 which is protected by the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedom and the whole in flagrant violation of the obligations of a co-owner under the Declaration of Co-Ownership and the Building Regulations. In all respects, there exist an abuse of rights and intended malice by Robert Gordon.

Robert Gordon's abusive use of Parking Space B11 by parking the Van so as to deliberately obstruct the normal use of Parking Space B12, and refusing to comply with reasonable and repeated requests to park the Van properly, constitutes a fault that commenced since at least January 1, 2014 and which continues to the present date. As all co-owners are responsible for the use and occupation of the co-owned property as regards third parties, such illegal conduct renders both Robert Gordon and Martin Gordon as co-owners of Parking Space B11 solidarity liable for damages to Mr. and Mrs. Aaron.

Remedial Action You are hereby summoned to immediately park the Van and any other vehicle in Parking Space B11 so that the parked vehicle position is centred between the vertical parking stripes of Parking Space B11 and behind the front horizontal (unstriped) line of Parking Space B11, and to avoid the obstruction in whatsoever manner (physical, angle, height, and sight lines) for normal and ready access to Parking Space B12. Damages In addition, Mr. and Mrs.

Aaron are entitled to damages of not less than $15,000.00, including without limitation, to compensate for the continued loss of use of their property Parking Space B12, as well as moral and punitive damages from you solidarily as co-owners of Parking Space B11, for the intentional violation of their rights and the harm suffered from your abusive exercise of your rights.

Should payment of this amount to De Grandpre Chait (in trust) not be received by latest July 31, 2015, please be advised that formal action will be taken without further notice or delay, and at your entire costs including extrajudicial fees and expert costs. This letter is written to you under the express reserve of the rights and recourses of Mr. and Mrs. Aaron, including without limitation, for injunctive relief. [9] In their application, Mr. and Mrs. Aaron essentially repeat these same facts, which they told during the hearing. [10] Ms.

Aaron said that following the parking of the van 6 inches from the dividing parking stripe in December 2013, she experienced serious difficulties in entering and exiting her parking space. [11] She begged Mr. Gordon to place his vehicle properly at his parking space, he categorically refused. [12] Towards the end of September 2014, she noticed that mud had been applied to the back of the van and to the side of the van facing her parking space. She filed as evidence the photographs she took. [13] Ms.

Aaron suggests that the van had been smeared with mud and dirt on site, because the rear tire was flat since December 2013 and the vehicle has not been driven since. [14] She draws the attention of the Court to the fact that the other side of the vehicle remained clean. [15] Access to her parking space during the winter is very difficult, as she must perform more maneuvers to avoid hitting the defendant's van. [16] In 2015, the plaintiffs retain the services of Mitchel Herscovitch, architect, who prepared a location plan of the two parking spaces and of the space occupied by the van. [17] In his report dated June 16, 2016, Mr.

Herscovitch mentions: Parking space B12 faces a concrete wall and parking spaces B18 and B19. There is a structural column at the front which divides parking spaces B12 and B13. A driver trying to enter and park in parking space B12 has to avoid damaging not only his car but cars parked in parking spaces B11, B18 and B19, the support column dividing parking spaces B12 and B13 as well as the concrete wall.

The minivan in parking space B11 is parked at a severe angle at the front of the parking stripe dividing parking spaces B11 and B12, with just approximately 6 1/8 inches from the bumper of the minivan to the front of parking space B12. This is contrasted with the minivan being at a distance of almost 3 feet (2 feet 9 inches) on the side of support column dividing parking spaces B10 and B11.

Compared to a vehicle parked in a centered manner between the lines, the minivan, as parked in parking space B11, effectively reduces the width available to the owner of parking space B12 to maneuver into her parking spot. Mr. Aaron mentioned that the minivan has been parked as such since January 2014. As such, the minivan as parked in parking space B11 is, in my opinion, creating a hazardous situation for a driver trying to enter and park in parking space B12. [18] In his testimony before the court, Mr.

Herscovitch essentially mentions the same observations and comments on the photos and the plan attached to his report. [19] Mr.

Albert Aaron says he was exasperated with the situation and he had to threaten the Condominium Association with a judicial remedy in order to force it to take measures to stop the defendants’ abusive behavior. [20] Interventions made by the Condominium Association with the defendants were ignored by them and they maintained their position to the effect that they are entitled to leave the vehicle in their parking space as they did. [21] At the General Meeting held on June 15, 2015, two resolutions were passed to amend the Declaration of Co-Ownership to include, among others, the following dispositions: • Any vehicule that is presumed not to be in good operating condition can be towed at the discretion of the Board; • Any vehicule that is parked in such manner so as to impede or prevent ready access to another co-owner can be towed at the discretion of the Board; • Any vehicule that does not conform to the declaration can be towed at the discretion of the Board. [22] Following the coming into effect of the amended Declaration of Co-Ownership, the Condominium Association sent a formal notice to the Defendants, who corrected the situation by moving the van about 6 inches towards the center of their parking space. [23] Mr. and Mrs.

Aaron say they were greatly affected by the Gordon's behavior, which lasted nearly two years. [24] They seek damages for loss of peaceful enjoyment of their parking space, moral damages and punitive damages. [25] Mr. Aaron suggests that Mr. R. Gordon acted as he did in retaliation because, previously, while acting as the President of the Condominium Association, he filed an action against him to force him to comply with the provisions of the Declaration of Co- Ownership. [26] Mr. R. Gordon represents the co-defendant, Martin Gordon, at the hearing.

He states that it was in January 2014 that he bought the van, which has been parked in their parking lot since the third week of January 2014. [27] He has since used the van a few times for small moves, twice in February 2014 and once in the summer to help a friend. [28] He suggests that the van was splashed while driving on the road, he does not remember exactly when. [29] He attempted to remove the mud with a snow clearing brush for car, which explains why it looks like something was spread. [30] Mr.

Gordon admits that the van did not travel from September 2014 to September 2015 due to a flat rear tire. [31] He explains that he was entitled to leave the van where it was within the limits of his parking space. [32] Mr. Gordon reiterated the same position contained in the letter of July 3, 2015 in which his lawyer stated: Our clients, Mr. Robert Gordon & Mr. Martin Gordon, have forwarded your demand letter of June 18th, 2015, to our offices for attention and reply and our clients vigorously deny the content of said demand letter. Firstly, Mr.

Martin Gordon is only a part-owner of the Condominium and does not live there, and the issues your clients have concern only Mr. Robert Gordon. There is no need here to try and confuse the lawsuit between the Condo Association and Mr. Gordon. The lawsuit was settled and the parties signed a mutual release and transaction. The fact that Mr. Aaron was and continues to be the President of the Condo Association is completely irrelevant to the matter at hand. Our client informs us that the van is legally parked between the lines which outline a parking spot of which he is the lawful owner.

Contrary to your pretention, our client has no legal obligation to park the van in a position that is more convenient to your clients. Moreover, we are informed that Mrs. Aaron was able to park her car in spot B11 from January 2014, when our client acquired the van, until May 2015, when she suddenly started parking elsewhere out of her volition. While your client may feel that our client has singled them out "for an abuse of rights", ironically, our client has the same sentiment.

Our client contends that he has been singled out by the Condo Board on numerous occasions for supposed violations of the rules, yet the Condo Board is happy to look the other way when its own members violate the rules themselves. Moreover, the supposed damages that your clients are attempting to extract from our client are completely fictitious and exaggerated. In truth, your clients have suffered no damages whatsoever from the manner in which our client chooses to park his vehicle, which is his strict right.

In view of the foregoing, do be advised that in the event that your client proceeds to institute abusive legal proceedings, same will be vigorously contested, and our client hereby reserves all of his rights to counter-claim for damages for abuse of the legal process, including recovery of all extra-judicial fees incurred. [33] As for the damages claimed, Mr. Gordon argues that they are clearly exaggerated. 3. ANALYSIS AND REASONS Questions in dispute [34] In order to make a decision in this dispute, the main issues to be dealt with by the Court are: • a.

Did the defendants abuse their right of ownership so as to be liable to the plaintiffs? • b. If so, what amount are the plaintiffs entitled to receive as moral damages? • c. Are the criteria met for the award of punitive damages? Applicable Principles of Law [35] It is useful to reproduce the relevant provisions of the Civil Code of Quebec (C.C.Q . ) [8] applicable in this case. 6. Every person is bound to exercise his civil rights in accordance with the requirements of good faith. 7.

No right may be exercised with the intent of injuring another or in an excessive and unreasonable manner, and therefore contrary to the requirements of good faith. […] 976. Neighbours shall suffer the normal neighbourhood annoyances that are not beyond the limit of tolerance they owe each other, according to the nature or location of their land or local usage. 1457. Every person has a duty to abide by the rules of conduct incumbent on him, according to the circumstances, usage or law, so as not to cause injury to another.

Where he is endowed with reason and fails in this duty, he is liable for any injury he causes to another by such fault and is bound to make reparation for the injury, whether it be bodily, moral or material in nature. He is also bound, in certain cases, to make reparation for injury caused to another by the act, omission or fault of another person or by the act of things in his custody. [36] It is necessary to identify the principles which, according to the case-law, must guide the Court in the context of this dispute over neighborhood disturbances. [37] In a judgment rendered in 2001 in the case of Balit v.

Faure [9] , the Honourable Nicole Duval Hesler, formerly of the Superior Court and now at the Court of Appeal, wrote: 15 Human beings are called to live in society and must suffer the normal inconveniences of neighborhood. Legislators have codified this obligation in

section 976 C.C.Q. It is an obligation which exists independently of any notion of contractual obligation or extra- contractual fault. In other words, neighborhood disturbances are now the subject of a special regime which excludes the notion of fault in the traditional sense. 16 Already, Savatier acknowledged that responsibility between neighbors could arise without fault, albeit exceptionally. He explained that it "relates to a state of necessity, which removes the fault of the agent, but does not remove the victim’s right to compensation. " 1 17 Mr. Justice Mayrand observed in Reitz v.

Issie Katz that the former French law "has always recognized the obligation of the owner not to harm his neighbors, and his obligation to compensate them when he happens to cause them excessive prejudice. " 2 18 It is because the right of an owner to use his thing "is necessarily limited by the obligation to leave to the neighbor the ability of enjoying his property also. " 3 In a neighborhood context, limitations on the exercise of the right of ownership are implicitly imposed, in the mutual interests of the owners. ( Footnotes omitted. ) [38] Concerning the application of

section 976 C.C.Q., [10] author Michel Gagné writes: The right of action in the case of neighborhood disturbances requires three basic conditions. The parties involved must first be neighbors, the disturbances must arise from the exercise of the right of ownership and, finally, it must be proven that abnormal inconveniences have

resulted. [39] On the concept of abuse of right in neighborhood disturbances, author Michel Gagné writes: The rule of abuse of right finds its source in the principles of civil liability, and in particular, in Sections 6, 7, 1375 and 1457 C.C.Q. The concept of abuse of right has general application in civil law and is not restricted to the right of ownership. To abuse of the right of ownership is to exercise it in a way that is harmful to others or in an excessive and unreasonable manner that runs counter to the requirements of good faith.

Abuse of right sometimes indicates malicious intent, sometimes carelessness towards others. The exercise of the right of ownership becomes abusive when it is bad, incorrect or improper . 7 The right of action for neighborhood disturbances is both a separate right of action based on

Section 976 CCQ, but also the extension, in the exercise of the right of ownership, of the general right of action for abuse of right, in a context where there is no intention to harm. Here, the exercise of the right of ownership is in itself useful and accomplished without malicious intent, but the owner is liable when the exercise of his right of ownership proves to be a source of abnormal or unusual inconveniences causing harm to his neighbor . ( Footnotes omitted. ) [40] The following abstract of the judgment in the case Larue v .

TVA Productions inc. [11] , rendered in 2011, by the Honourable Superior Court judge Claude Dallaire, updates the principles established by case-law for the application of the concept of neighborhood disturbances: [179] This means that the neighbor who suffered harm no longer has to demonstrate that his neighbor has committed a fault for him to be liable. [180] It is the result created by the conduct of that neighbor that must be the subject of the analysis to be carried out by the Court. [181] The analysis of such a claim must be made with the following assumption in mind: neighbors are required to accept the normal inconveniences of neighborhood, except those that the Court, to whom the inconveniences are referred, qualifies as abnormal because they exceed the limits of tolerance. [...] [183] The judgment Ciment St-Laurent found that

section 976 C.C.Q. creates an objective liability 66 . [184] This means that the assessment of the inconveniences is not made based on the opinion of a particular plaintiff, but according to what a reasonable person in the same circumstances would think 67 . [185] This prevents a plaintiff who is intransigent in all respects to declare himself inconvenienced by all the actions of his neighbor and automatically succeeds in his recourse simply because he has no tolerance for anything. [186] That being said, the Court should not necessarily dismiss a person's recourse solely on the ground that no one else has complained of the same inconveniences. [187] Each case is therefore a concrete case and must be decided having in mind all the particular circumstances revealed by the evidence. (Footnotes omitted) Did the defendants abuse their right of ownership in a way that makes them liable to the plaintiffs? [41] The application of the aforementioned principles to the factual framework leads to an affirmative answer to this question, for the following reasons. [42] The disturbances in question are serious and recurrent and exceed the normality threshold of

section 976 C.C.Q. [43] The evidence shows that the specific location where Mr. Robert Gordon parked the van and the manner in which it was parked substantially limited the access of the plaintiffs to their parking space. [44] He refused to move the van a few inches to the center of his parking space, ignoring the requests of the plaintiffs and of the administrators of the Condominium. [45] His intransigence lasted more than a year and required changes to the Declaration of Co-Ownership to stop his behavior. [46] There is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that inconveniences caused by Mr.

Gordon's intransigence are excessive, which is what a reasonable person would have understood in the same circumstances. [47] During a general meeting, the other co-owners passed resolutions to stop Mr. Gordon's behavior, which supports the plaintiffs' position to the effect that he abused of his right of ownership. [48] Mr. R.

Gordon's argument that the vehicle was parked within the boundaries of his parking space can’t support his position, because, given the intransigence he demonstrated, such argument supports the position of the plaintiffs to the effect that he acted in bad faith. [49] The same reasoning applies to his argument that he did not act out of vengeance, to contradict what was stated by a doorman,

who he recorded without his knowledge during a recent conversation in which he denies this fact. Evidence of malicious intent is not required to demonstrate abuse of right in this case. [50] The evidence shows that to correct the situation, Mr.

Gordon only had to move the vehicle about 6 inches, following the Condominium association’s formal notice in September 2015, which was about to enforce the amended Declaration of Co-Ownership. [51] The Court agrees that leaving the van parked for more than a year at only 6 inches from the dividing parking stripe of the plaintiffs’ parking space constitute abnormal inconveniences, even if no fault has been committed. Yet, there was a space of several feet on the other side of the vehicle.

In general, the co-owners do not park their vehicle at a distance of 6 inches from the parking stripe separating their parking spaces in the underground indoor garage. [52] Is it necessary to remind that to abuse the right of ownership is to exercise it in a way that is harmful to another person or in an excessive and unreasonable manner that runs counter to the requirements of good faith.

That is what the defendants have done for more than a year, carelessly and intransigently. [53] The Court finds that the criteria are met to make the defendants liable to the plaintiffs. [54] Now, the amount of damages to be awarded to the plaintiffs still needs to be determined. Damages for disturbances and inconveniences [55] The evidence shows that the plaintiffs, over 80 years of age, had to face inconveniences over a long period while accessing and exiting their parking space, because of the intransigence of Mr. R. Gordon.

This has resulted in some loss of peaceful enjoyment of their parking space and, above all, inconveniences that could easily have been avoided. [56] In the light of the factual framework at its disposal, taking into account the nature of the inconveniences which have been recurring and have caused harm over a period of more than one year, the Court considers it reasonable to arbitrate at 4 000 $ the amount to be awarded to the plaintiffs as moral damages for disturbances and inconveniences.

Punitive damages [57] The relevant provisions of the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms (« the Charter » ) [12] applicable in this case are the following: 6. Every person has a right to the peaceful enjoyment and free disposition of his property, except to the extent provided by law . […] 49. Any unlawful interference with any right or freedom recognized by this Charter entitles the victim to obtain the cessation of such interference and compensation for the moral or material prejudice resulting therefrom.

In case of unlawful and intentional interference, the tribunal may, in addition, condemn the person guilty of it to punitive damages. [58] The principles for the award of punitive damages are well established by the case-law. In Métromédia CMR Montréal inc. v . Johnson [13] , the Court of Appeal teaches: [108] The preventive function of punitive damages is fundamental ; they serve a dual purpose of punishment and deterrence but cannot exceed what is sufficient to achieve these objectives. […] " it is [...] towards the future that the judge must turn to quantify an amount that will prevent recidivism".

This is not to compensate the plaintiff but to punish the defendant as he deserves, to deter him and others from doing so in the future and to express the disapproval of all regarding such events . (Underlining added) [59] According to the Supreme Court, in Montigny v . Brossard (Estate) [14] : [ 47] Unlike compensatory damages, the raison d'être of which is compensation for damage resulting from fault, exemplary damages exist for another purpose. The purpose of granting such damages is to mark the particular disapproval of the conduct.

It is related to the judicial assessment of a conduct, and not to the extent of the damages intended to compensate actual damage, whether pecuniary or not . […] (Underlining added) [60] The evidence presented demonstrates preponderantly the existence of a violation of the right guaranteed by

section 6 of the Charter . In addition, with respect to the defendant Robert Gordon, there is sufficient evidence of unlawful and intentional interference with this right guaranteed by the Charter , which is a public order right. Accordingly, the defendant Robert Gordon should be awarded exemplary damages under

section 49 of the Charter , set by the Court at $ 1 000.

[61] As for the co-defendant Martin Gordon, the mere fact that he is the owner is not sufficient to hold him liable for the purpose of punitive damages. The two criteria of section 49 (2) of the Charter , namely, unlawful and intentional interference, are not met. Therefore, punitive damages cannot be awarded in his case. [62] FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [63] GRANTS, in part, the plaintiffs’ action; [64] CONDEMNS the defendants to pay to the plaintiffs moral damages in the amount of $ 4 000 with interest at the legal rate plus the additional indemnity provided for in

Section 1619 of the Civil Code of Québec , from the date of the demand letter dated June 18, 2015, plus legal fees of $ 206; [65] CONDEMNS the defendant, Robert Gordon,

[…]