What a Court of Québec decision teaches about unpaid condo fees, the quorum of co-owners’ meetings and the choice of the right court.
A building on D’Iberville Street in Montreal. Two units, two fractions of a divided co-ownership — what Quebec law calls copropriété divise, and what most people simply call a condo — and two neighbours. On one side, a couple who own one of the fractions and who, between the two of them, make up the entire board of directors of the syndicate (the legal entity that manages the building). On the other, a co-owner who stops paying his share of the common expenses and challenges the very legitimacy of the syndicate’s decisions.
The syndicate eventually brings out the heavy artillery: it asks the court to order the forced surrender and sale under judicial authority of the neighbour’s fraction. In plain language, it asks the court to sell the condo in order to get paid.
Then, at the very outset of the trial, a twist. The judge raises on his own initiative — ex officio, in legal parlance — a question neither party had asked: does the Court of Québec even have the authority to hear this case? On 1 May 2026, in Syndicat de la copropriété du 4236-4238 d’Iberville c. Rimane, 2026 QCCQ 1828, the Honourable Nicholas Daudelin, J.C.Q., answers no and orders the file transferred to the Superior Court. After two days of hearing on 5 and 6 February 2026 and written pleadings, the parties are back to square one — before a different court.
The Facts: Two Fractions, One Board of Directors, a Dispute That Escalates
The building contains only two fractions of divided co-ownership. Mr. Laneuville and Ms. Dionne hold one of them jointly; Mr. Rimane holds the other. During the relevant period, the couple alone make up the syndicate’s entire board of directors.
The syndicate claims Mr. Rimane’s unpaid condo fees — his share of the common expenses, the money that keeps the building running. It exercises its hypothecary recourse: Quebec law grants the syndicate a legal hypothec (a statutory security, comparable to a lien or mortgage) over the fraction of a defaulting co-owner (art. 2729 of the Civil Code of Québec). It also claims an indemnity for the professional fees incurred in collecting the debt.
The Heart of the Defence: No Quorum
Mr. Rimane does not merely argue that the amounts are too high. He attacks the root: in his view, the debt never validly came into existence, because the meetings of co-owners were held without a quorum.
His reasoning rests on article 1091 of the Civil Code of Québec. That provision states that, in a co-ownership comprising fewer than five fractions, a co-owner holding more than half of all the votes has his number of votes reduced, at a meeting, to the sum of the votes of the other co-owners present or represented. The legislature’s goal is simple: to prevent a majority co-owner from running the show single-handedly in a small building. Note right away that the Court makes no ruling on whether this provision applies to the facts of the case — that is precisely the crux of the problem.
Now, the quorum of a meeting — the minimum number of votes required for the meeting to sit validly — consists of the co-owners holding a majority of the votes (art. 1089 C.C.Q.). If the majority owner’s votes are reduced, Mr. Rimane argues, then it is that reduced number that must be used to calculate the quorum. No quorum, no valid meeting. No valid meeting, no valid election of directors and no valid budget — and therefore no enforceable common expenses. He himself describes his defence as the equivalent of a direct action in nullity, the decisions being, in his words, « nulles ab initio » — null from the outset.
He adds a long list of subsidiary grounds: legal fees incurred by the couple personally but billed to the syndicate, a claim amount he says is inflated, roofing work already before an arbitrator, expenses benefiting the neighbours’ private portion, constant fluctuations in the balance claimed that prevented him from curing his default, prohibited penalties, and sums already paid.
One point deserves emphasis immediately: the Court rules on none of these complaints. It decides a single question, prior to all the others — which court has the power to decide them?
Why the Court of Québec Stepped Back
The Court of Québec is not a court of general jurisdiction. That role belongs to the Superior Court, which has authority by default over everything the legislature has not expressly assigned elsewhere. The Court of Québec draws its authority from specific texts: in civil matters, article 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure gives it disputes concerning contractual and extracontractual obligations, subject to monetary thresholds — while specifying that it does not exercise that authority where the law formally and exclusively assigns the matter to another court or adjudicative body.
Justice Daudelin then turns to article 34 C.C.P., which vests the Superior Court with a general power of judicial review, including over private legal persons. A condominium syndicate is precisely a private legal person. Verifying whether its meetings, elections and budgets were lawfully conducted amounts to reviewing its acts — an exercise the case law consistently reserves to the Superior Court.
That left the question of what the dispute is really about. The Court applies the classic two-step framework: examine the legislative texts, then identify the true nature of the dispute between the parties, regardless of the label the parties attach to their proceedings. Crucially, that nature is not determined from the claim alone. Borrowing a formula from the Superior Court, the judge stresses that a claim cannot be severed from the defence raised against it without distorting and sterilizing the debate.
The syndicate argued that the Court could simply set the defence aside and rule on the claim. The judge refuses: the defence is inextricably linked to the allegations in the claim. « Un moyen de défense est la réponse à une allégation formulée dans une demande. Ils doivent être entendus ensemble pour que justice soit rendue », he writes — a defence is the answer to an allegation made in a claim, and the two must be heard together for justice to be done. Setting the defence aside would deprive Mr. Rimane of his right to a full and complete defence.
A telling detail: it was the syndicate’s own counsel who, at the hearing, summed up the problem by saying that the Court of Québec would be stepping into the Superior Court’s jurisdiction by ruling on the validity of the argument, and that wading into article 1091 C.C.Q. in such a context raises a jurisdictional issue. The Court agrees with him on that precise point — while rejecting his conclusion.
Articles 1086.2 and 1103 C.C.Q.: A Formidable Shield, but Not Airtight
The most practically useful part of the judgment concerns articles 1086.2 and 1103 C.C.Q. These provisions allow a co-owner to ask the court to annul a decision of the board of directors or of the general meeting where it is biased, was taken with intent to injure the co-owners, or was taken in contempt of their rights (article 1103 also covers an error in the counting of votes).
Two distinct requirements apply cumulatively here. First, the co-owner must proceed by action — a proceeding he institutes himself. He can never simply raise the nullity as a shield when he is sued. Second, he must do so within 90 days, on pain of forfeiture, meaning outright loss of the right.
This restrictive framework is no whim: it serves the stability of the co-ownership. The legislature wants to prevent a disgruntled co-owner from paralyzing the building by reopening, years later, decisions already implemented. The practical consequence: where these articles apply, a syndicate suing before the Court of Québec keeps its forum — not because the defence was rejected on the merits, but because it simply does not legally form part of the dispute.
Except that — and here is the rub — the Court sides with Mr. Rimane on one point: a challenge based on the absence of a quorum falls outside the scope of article 1103 C.C.Q., consistent with what the Superior Court held in Gaudette c. Syndicat de la copropriété Lauzon, 2022 QCCS 3848. Neither the obligation to proceed by action nor the 90-day deadline applies. The argument stays alive, it forms part of the dispute… and it belongs to the Superior Court. The syndicate’s shield did not cover that particular arrow.
Why This Case Is Worth Noting
First, because both parties agreed that the Court of Québec had jurisdiction. No one asked for a transfer: the judge raised the issue on his own initiative and ruled otherwise. Subject-matter jurisdiction — which determines which court may hear which matter — is not negotiable between litigants. Parties cannot confer on a court a power the law does not give it, even by mutual consent.
Second, because the price is steep. Two days of hearing, written pleadings, a deliberation — and in the end, not a single substantive question resolved. Costs will follow the outcome of the proceeding before the Superior Court. Nobody won: Mr. Rimane was not released from his debt, and the syndicate did not obtain the sale of the fraction. The file simply changed addresses — both parties having in fact asked for the transfer should the Court reach that conclusion.
Third, because the judge shows an intellectual honesty worth highlighting. He sets out the opposing argument himself: one could contend that article 34 C.C.P. merely expresses the Superior Court’s inherent supervisory power rather than conferring exclusive jurisdiction. He rejects that reading on the basis that the legislature does not speak in vain, but the question is not closed: a Small Claims Division decision had already analyzed the legality of a syndicate’s decision-making process without jurisdiction ever being raised. In our view, practice is therefore not perfectly uniform, and an appellate court could one day temper this reasoning.
Unpaid Condo Fees: Key Takeaways for Syndicates
- Get the mechanics of your meetings right. Notices, quorum, vote counting, minutes, elections. A common-expenses claim is never stronger than the decision-making process that created it.
- In a co-ownership of fewer than five fractions, watch out for article 1091 C.C.Q. The majority co-owner does not have the control he thinks he has. Have your vote and quorum calculations validated before your meetings, not after.
- Never mix personal legal fees with the syndicate’s. Fees incurred by directors to defend themselves personally have no place in the common expenses.
- Keep stable, well-documented accounts. A balance that keeps shifting opens the door to a challenge to the notice of hypothec and the prior notice of exercise: that is exactly what the co-owner argued here.
- Choose the right court from the start. If the co-owner is challenging the legitimacy of your board or the conduct of your meetings, the Superior Court is likely your forum, even where the amount is modest.
- Articles 1086.2 and 1103 C.C.Q. remain your best allies. Document the date of every decision: a co-owner must attack by action and within 90 days. But that regime does not cover everything, and the absence of a quorum escapes it.
Unpaid Condo Fees: Key Takeaways for Co-Owners
- Do not bury your head in the sand. Withholding common expenses is not a strategy. The syndicate holds a legal hypothec and can seek the forced sale of your fraction.
- If a decision strikes you as abusive, react quickly and in the right way. Articles 1086.2 and 1103 C.C.Q. require an action that you must institute yourself, within 90 days. Waiting to be sued so you can raise the argument as a defence does not work, and once that window closes your right is extinguished.
- Attend meetings, or send a proxy. In a small co-ownership, your mere presence can change the vote and quorum calculation. An empty chair is a lost argument.
- Ask for the documents before you challenge. Budgets, financial statements, minutes, invoices. A challenge backed by documents is worth a hundred challenges based on impressions.
- Mind which court is seized. If your defence attacks the very legality of how the syndicate operates, the Court of Québec may not be able to hear you. Raise the question early: you will avoid litigating twice.
- Changing courts is not winning. Mr. Rimane’s file was transferred, not dismissed. The real debate remains untouched, and the legal bill keeps running.
In Closing: The Door You Walk Through Matters as Much as the Argument
This decision is a reminder of a truth courts never tire of repeating: in law, the door you walk through matters as much as the argument you carry. An excellent point argued before the wrong court is worth very little — and it can cost a great deal. In small co-ownerships, where the line between neighbourly relations and governance is thin, the habit of checking the forum before opening hostilities is worth its weight in gold.
The same caution applies more broadly in real estate law: asking the right questions before signing, as our column on the seller’s duty to disclose illustrates, always costs less than litigating afterwards. Whether you sit on a board facing unpaid condo fees or you are a co-owner convinced that the decisions taken against you are unlawful, the first question to settle is the same: before which court? Our civil litigation team can help you answer it before the bill doubles.
Written by William Desrochers, a civil and family litigation lawyer at Virtulex Lawyers in Gatineau, instructor at the École du Barreau du Québec and accredited mediator.
This text has an informational purpose only and does not constitute legal advice. Every situation has its own particularities. For advice tailored to your file, the Virtulex avocats team can assist you.
