2021 QCCA 1255, 2021 QCCA 1255

Aintabi c. Syndicat des copropriétaires de The Meadows Condominium 2021 QCCA 1255 COUR D'APPEL CANADA PROVINCE DE QUÉBEC GREFFE DE MONTRÉAL N o : 500-09-029505-211 ( 500-17-099445-176 ) PROCÈS-VERBAL D'AUDIENCE DATE : Le 6 août 2021 FORMATION : LES HONORABLES STEPHEN W. HAMILTON, J.C.A. BENOÎT MOORE, J.C.A. GUY COURNOYER, J.C.A. PARTIES APPELANTES AVOCAT Elie Aintabi Lesley Tannenbaum Me HOWARD SCHNITZER ( Howard Schnitzer ) Absent PARTIES INTIMÉES AVOCAT Syndicat des copropriétaires de the Meadows Condominium Chaim alon mark sidloi shay abicidan kevin fuks alex fyon Nathalie Shimansky Me JEAN EL MASRI ( El Masri Avocat ) Absent

PARTIE MISE EN CAUSE AVOCATES Intact Compagnie d'assurance Me KATHERINE LORANGER Me SANDRA DESJARDINS ( Langlois avocats ) Absentes En appel d’un jugement rendu le 15 avril 2021 par l’honorable Bernard Synnott de la Cour supérieure , district de Montréal .

DESCRIPTION : Requête de la mise en cause en rejet d'appel (Article 365 C.p.c. ). Requête des intimés en rejet d'appel (Article 365 C.p.c. ). Greffière-audiencièr e : Lesly Ramos Salle : Pierre-Basile-Mignault AUDITION 9 h 30 Début de l’audience. Continuation de l'audience du 5 août 2021. Les parties ont été dispensées d’être présentes à la Cour. PAR LA COUR : Arrêt – voir page 4. Fin de l’audience. Lesly Ramos, Greffière-audiencière ARRÊT [ 1 ] The Appelants purchased a unit in a residential condominium in 2012.

They allege that they suffered damages as the result of water infiltration and mold contamination, which they first noticed in May 2016 and which was not resolved until June 2019. They sued the syndicate of co-owners as well as six directors of the syndicate. [ 2 ] The trial judge dismissed the action and declared it to be abusive in regards to the six directors. He condemned the Appellants to pay $2,500 in punitive damages to each of them. [ 3 ] The Appellants filed a notice of appeal.

The Respondents and the Intervenant (the Respondents’ insure) filed motions to dismiss the appeal. [ 4 ] With respect to the appeal against the syndicate, the Appellants raise issues in their notice of appeal which appear to be serious and which it would not be appropriate to dismiss at this preliminary stage without reviewing the record.

The motions to dismiss the appeal against the syndicate are dismissed and the appeal against the syndicate is allowed to proceed. [ 5 ] The Appellants do not appeal from the dismissal to their action against the directors, but only from the finding that their action against the directors was abusive and from the damages awarded in favour of the directors. Leave to appeal from these conclusions is required, both because of the nature of the appeal [1] and because the amount at issue is only $2,500 for each director [2] . At the hearing, the Appellants made a verbal motion for leave to appeal.

They acknowledged that the appeal against the directors did not meet the test set out in the second paragraph of

Article 30 C.C.P. , but argued instead that leave to appeal should be granted because the appeal against the directors was part of the larger appeal against the syndicate. That argument is dismissed. The declaration of abuse and the damages awarded to the directors can stand regardless of the outcome of the appeal against the syndicate. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 6 ] DECLARES that the Appellants required leave to appeal with respect to the appeal against the directors of the syndicate; [ 7 ] DISSMISSES the verbal motion for leave to appeal with respect to the appeal against the directors of the syndicate;

[ 8 ] DISMISSES the appeal against the directors; [ 9 ] DISMISSES the motions to dismiss with respect to the appeal against the syndicate; [ 10 ] THE WHOLE , without legal costs given the divided outcome. STEPHEN W. HAMILTON, J.C.A. BENOÎT MOORE, J.C.A. GUY COURNOYER, J.C.A.