The Court of Québec clarifies the duty of vigilance co-owners owe with respect to the equipment in their private portion — and confirms that a syndicate can claim its legal fees from the co-owner at fault.
Water peeling the wallpaper on the fourteenth floor. A board member climbing from floor to floor in search of the source. And, on the sixteenth, a nearly ten-year-old water heater quietly leaking in its corner, behind storage shelves, while its owner tells himself it is just condensation. That is the starting point of Syndicat des copropriétaires du condominium Club marin II c. Andrade, 2026 QCCQ 3004, decided on July 7, 2026 by the Honourable Luc Huppé of the Court of Québec. The end result: the two co-owners were ordered to pay $76,231.11 — more than what the syndicate was actually claiming.
The Facts: Warning Signs Ignored
In July 2019, the defendants purchased a unit on the sixteenth floor of a nineteen-storey, 208-unit tower in Montréal. (In Quebec, condominiums are governed by the rules of “divided co-ownership”: each owner holds a private portion — the unit — while the building is managed by a legal person made up of all the owners, called the syndicate.) In a small storage room sat the water heater, installed on August 21, 2012 according to the label on the appliance. The building by-laws were explicit: every co-owner must ensure the water heater is kept in good condition, with a stated service life of ten years.
The owner went into that room almost daily and checked the drip pan — the tray placed under a water heater to catch leaks. He saw water in it but, since it never overflowed, concluded it was mere condensation and let the matter rest.
On March 29, 2022, a member of the syndicate’s board of directors, tracing an infiltration discovered two floors below, found the culprit: the water heater was leaking, and mould had formed at the base of a wall. The emergency plumber confirmed that the water was coming from the water heater itself — rusted at its base, its internal insulation soaked. Nine units below the defendants’ were affected, along with common portions of the building.
One detail matters greatly: the water heater was replaced a few days later, but the old appliance was not preserved. No expert examination of its condition was ever possible.
Who Pays When the Damage Starts in a Private Portion?
In divided co-ownership, the law requires the syndicate to insure the entire building, including the private portions (except improvements made by the co-owners). In principle, the building’s insurance should respond to a loss. But here there was a sizeable problem: the syndicate’s deductible — the amount it must absorb before the insurer pays — stood at $250,000, the consequence of a string of prior claims. Since the damage fell below that threshold, no insurance claim was possible. The syndicate paid for the repairs out of its own pocket.
Enter article 1074.2 of the Civil Code of Québec. It provides that the syndicate cannot recover those sums from the co-owners otherwise than through their common expenses — in other words, the collectivity absorbs the loss — unless it obtains damages from a co-owner whose fault caused the injury or, in the cases provided for in the Code, from a co-owner liable for the act of a thing in his custody.
That last phrase was added by the legislature in 2020, and it changes everything. Under the original version, courts required the syndicate to prove the co-owner’s fault — a burden that often proved impossible to meet, since a syndicate knows nothing about how each owner maintains what is inside his own unit. Since the amendment, the syndicate can rely on article 1465 of the Civil Code, which governs the liability of the “custodian of a thing”.
The Presumption of Fault and the Duty of “Sustained Vigilance”
Article 1465 creates what lawyers call a presumption of fault: when a thing causes injury through its “autonomous act” — here, a water heater leaking without anyone touching it — its custodian is liable unless he proves he committed no fault. The burden of proof is reversed: it is no longer for the syndicate to establish the co-owner’s negligence, but for the co-owner to establish his own diligence.
The judgment takes the analysis a step further, and that is what makes it noteworthy. Justice Huppé stresses that in a high-rise, the proximity of the units makes the risk of cascading damage particularly high, and that neighbours are entirely dependent on the watchfulness each co-owner exercises within his own walls. From this he draws a demanding standard: to rebut the presumption, a co-owner must show that he exercised sustained vigilance in verifying the good condition of the things located in his private portion.
Applied to the facts, that standard was fatal to the defendants. As the court put it, the presence of water in the drip pan was, in itself, a sign that the water heater could have a problem. Such a sign could not be ignored, especially a few months before the end of the ten-year service life set out in the building by-laws. A simple check — the very one the plumber performed in minutes after the loss — would have revealed the leak in time. Burying one’s head in the sand in the face of a warning sign, the court concludes in substance, is negligence.
The “Sharp Objects” Defence Rejected
The defendants tried to shift the blame onto the workers who, a few months earlier, had replaced air-conditioning connections in the ceiling above the water heater. Sharp objects allegedly left in the drip pan had, they argued, pierced it, preventing water from visibly accumulating. The argument did not hold water: no expert evidence supported the theory and, more fundamentally, even if the pan had been pierced, the source of the damage remained the leak from the water heater itself — the autonomous act of the thing. The alleged piercing would be but one link in the chain of events, not the cause of the injury.
The Syndicate’s Legal Fees: Borne by the Co-Owner at Fault
Another point of interest: the declaration of co-ownership allowed the syndicate to claim from a defaulting co-owner the judicial and extrajudicial costs it incurred, up to 15% of the unit’s municipal valuation. On that basis, the syndicate claimed $27,674.98 in lawyers’ fees and disbursements.
The defendants argued the clause was abusive within the meaning of article 1437 of the Civil Code. The court disagreed: the declaration of co-ownership binds every co-owner from its registration, and there is nothing excessive in requiring the owner who breaches his obligations to reimburse the fees the collectivity had to incur to enforce the rules it has given itself. The case law requires only that the amount claimed be reasonable — which it was here, after a judicial settlement conference, three pre-trial examinations and a day-and-a-half trial.
Why This Case Stands Out
First, for the standard it articulates. The judgment does not merely apply the article 1465 presumption: it adapts it to the specific context of divided co-ownership and raises the intensity of the co-owner’s duty of watchfulness. It offers a structured analytical framework that will serve in many other water-damage files — a type of litigation Quebec courts are flooded with.
Second, for its intellectual honesty. Justice Huppé acknowledges that legal commentators have been sharply critical of the state of the law in this area, and openly signals his disagreement with the position taken in certain other Court of Québec judgments. The question is therefore not definitively settled: other judges may see things differently, and guidance from the Court of Appeal would be welcome.
Finally, for a procedural twist: the $76,231.11 award exceeds the $75,489.61 claimed. The syndicate had overlooked two fee invoices when totalling its amended claim; the court corrected the amount of its own motion under article 208 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A well-documented claim, it turns out, can be worth more than what you added up yourself.
Key Takeaways
For condo owners: your water heater, washing machine or air conditioner can expose you personally to tens of thousands of dollars in liability, even without any “active” wrongdoing on your part. Water in the drip pan is never trivial: have the appliance inspected promptly, replace it as it nears its stated service life, keep proof of maintenance — and if a loss occurs, never dispose of the appliance before an expert examination is possible. Check your liability insurance as well: it is mandatory in Quebec, and it is what protects you in precisely this scenario.
For syndicates: the 2020 amendment to article 1074.2 gave you your teeth back. Document the loss, the causal link and every invoice rigorously — in this case, deficient proof regarding certain cheques shaved part of the claim. And a well-drafted clause providing for reimbursement of legal fees, applied reasonably, is valid and valuable.
This column is published for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Because every situation is unique, you should consult a lawyer for advice tailored to your own case. Feel free to contact Virtulex avocats to discuss your situation.
William Desrochers, Attorney, Virtulex avocats — www.virtulexavocats.com
Reference: Syndicat des copropriétaires du condominium Club marin II c. Andrade, 2026 QCCQ 3004 (the Honourable Luc Huppé, J.C.Q., July 7, 2026), available on CanLII.
