Throughout history, the relationships between neighbors have often been marked by animosity. The advent of shared ownership certainly hasn't improved things, as each person considers themselves an owner while acting like a renter.
Throughout history, neighborly relations have often been fraught with animosity. The advent of divided condominium ownership has certainly not improved matters, as each person considers themselves an owner while acting like a tenant.
According to the Civil Code, the contribution of co-owners to common expenses seems straightforward. But what happens when some co-owners have rights to certain common areas, while others do not, and the building includes both residential and commercial units?
For example, what is the scope of a clause stating that the "owner of the only commercial unit is not obligated to pay their share of the expenses related to the private areas that are not used by the business? The only common expenses being insurance, snow removal, and repairs to all exterior walls."
Is the provision that requires the distribution of common expenses among co-owners based on their respective shares a matter of public policy? In a recent decision, the Court of Appeal* concluded that it is, but only as a matter of public policy for protection. Thus, a co-owner who has been informed of such a derogation and still signs the "act of acquisition, after the publication of the declaration of co-ownership," is deemed to have waived this protective provision.
A survey would likely show that the majority of people spend more time and energy reading and understanding the instruction manual for an Ikea furniture than reading and understanding the declaration of co-ownership when acquiring a condo. Neither is necessarily straightforward, but the latter requires a bit more reflection—and unfortunately, not everything can be solved with an Allen key.
*C.A. (Montréal) 500-09-018355-081
