Free Consultation 24/7 
The Court of Quebec, Small Claims Division, recently rendered a judgment on January 12, 2026, that has caught the attention of legal analysts everywhere. The case itself was dismissed, but what captivates so many people is that it and the judgment centered on co-ownership of property.
According to court records, the lawsuit originated after multiple complaints between the parties, including noise management, structural concerns, and questions about how certain directors were replaced or elected.
Under Quebec law, a syndicate of co-owners is a legal person whose administration is entrusted to a board of directors.
Co-ownership of a property constitutes a genuine contract, and all the co-owners are bound to the syndicate. The syndicate governs the board’s operations and membership. Specific provisions can be applied, but when there aren’t any specific provisions in place, the Civil Code of Quebec automatically applies.
Throughout the proceedings, the judge made it clear that the directors must act in the syndicate’s best interests, with prudence, diligence, honesty, and loyalty. These directors can be held personally liable if they act outside of the normal exercise of their duties.
One important takeaway from this case is that the Court rejected the notion that a co-owner should be able to claim an acquired right to serve on the board of directors or to be elected. The court also analyzed whether a board of directors’ decision not to elect a co-owner should be considered irregular, but concluded that fact alone would not be sufficient to establish irregularity.
So long as the electoral process complies with the rules set out in the original declaration of ownership, it is considered ‘fair’ if the electoral process decides not to elect a co-owner. The reason for this, according to the judgment, is that the election of directors is a matter of the collective will, expressed by all members at a meeting, in accordance with the outlined procedures.
Another important takeaway was the Court’s confirmation that the co-ownership declaration governs how vacancies on the board of directors must be filled. During a temporary vacancy, the position may be filled by directors in the office or by holding a special meeting to make a determination.
Partition Actions in America
While the legal framework in the case above applies to co-owned Canadian property, similar precedents exist in the U.S. In America, co-owners generally have equal rights to use, enjoy, and possess property, unless a formal written agreement is signed by both parties. Both owners also share equal responsibility for that property.
If disagreements arise, however, they often require legal action rather than a board of directors to decide how to proceed. Often, a partition, or sale of the property, is ordered to resolve disputes.
Leave your contact details onour online form now to get in touch with our team about your co-ownership situation. We offer free, no-obligation consultations to anyone potentially facing a partition action.
