A Storm in a Teacup?
While many syndicates and administrators wonder when they must deliver this certificate, Me Gagnon calls for calm and for a faithful reading of the law:
“The syndicate must provide the document, and it does not have to verify whether an offer to purchase is signed or not. If the co-owner requests the certificate, the syndicate must provide it. It has no obligation to verify whether the condo is for sale or subject to a conditional offer or a firm offer,” she writes.
In short, according to her, it is not a question of guessing the co-owner’s intentions or playing notary. Article 1068.1 C.C.Q. is worded in simple and clear terms:
“To that end, the syndicate shall, within 15 days, provide the certificate to the co-owner who makes the request.”
Nowhere is it stated that the delivery of this certificate by the syndicate to the co-owner is conditional upon a formalized sale process. It must be provided within 15 days of the request. This 15-day period would be unreasonable if it had to follow an offer to purchase signed by the parties. If we then allow the buyer 7 days to review it, we would have a due diligence period of 21 days, which runs counter to current practices and would hinder real estate transactions rather than promote their security.
A practice already in place
Me Gagnon also emphasizes that, in daily practice, co-owners request the certificate when they need it, often when their real estate broker advises them to do so. And this occurs without any issues.
“In practice, people will request their certificate from the syndicate when the broker tells them to, and it will not be a problem.”
She therefore deplores the media frenzy surrounding this obligation, which could wrongly suggest that syndicates are placed in an uncomfortable position, whereas the process is rather simple: a written request by the co-owner, a document to be provided to the co-owner within the legal deadlines, and that’s it.
The delivery of the certificate by the co-owner to their promissory buyer will limit the latter's interest in submitting a request for information to the syndicate pursuant to article 1068.2 of the Civil Code of Québec, which has been in force since January 10, 2020, or at the very least, will restrict the scope of such a request.
Me Gagnon also notes that it would be surprising for co-owners to start requesting certificates without valid reason since the syndicate will likely charge reasonable fees for providing this document to the co-owner.
A view supported by doctrine
Me Gagnon’s position will be confirmed in the 6th edition of her book, La copropriété divise, currently in production at Éditions Yvon Blais. It will read:
“Article 1068.1 C.C.Q. creates an obligation for the person selling their fraction and an obligation for the syndicate of co-owners. The buyer is not required to undertake steps to obtain certain information concerning the co-ownership and the syndicate. It is the seller who must provide them, in due time, with a certificate from the syndicate regarding the condition of the co-ownership. The obligation for the seller exists by operation of law. Thus, the co-owner who plans to put their fraction up for sale must contact the syndicate to obtain this certificate so as not to slow down the sale process. The best time to obtain this document from the syndicate is undoubtedly when a co-owner decides to sell their fraction and prepares the necessary documentation. If they wait until receiving an offer to purchase that is conditional on reviewing this certificate, they risk unduly lengthening the promising buyer’s due diligence period, which is not advisable for either party. It is equally in the interest of the seller and the promising buyer that the latter receives the document as early as possible in the transaction process.
The syndicate is required to provide the certificate of the condition of the co-ownership to a co-owner within 15 days of the request. It is not for the syndicate to verify whether an offer to purchase has been received, whether the fraction is truly for sale, or whether the co-owner is serious in their project. As soon as it receives a request, it must deliver the certificate within the period provided by law. Obviously, we can imagine that the syndicate may charge reasonable fees for delivering this certificate.”
According to Me Gagnon, the legal text is clear and not open to interpretation. She encourages syndicates not to maintain uncertainties, especially since article 1068.1 C.C.Q. provides that the certificate must be delivered to the promising buyer in due time. Everyone will agree that “in due time” does not mean once the sale agreement is completed and the price is fixed. This information is necessary to then agree on a sale price and other terms of the sale and to provide informed consent. Requiring the syndicate to demand an already signed promise to purchase would harm both the buyer and the seller, which is entirely contrary to the letter, spirit, and purpose of this provision.
An interpretation that promotes transparency
By requiring the syndicate to deliver this certificate without any prior condition, transparency in real estate transactions is promoted. It is in the interest of all parties — co-owners, buyers, brokers, notaries — that the actual condition of the co-ownership be known from the outset of the sale process.
This also allows sellers to anticipate steps and correct, if necessary, problematic elements in the management or maintenance of the building. In other words, this certificate becomes a governance tool — not just a transactional document.
In conclusion: legal common sense
The position expressed by Me Christine Gagnon is both simple, coherent, and grounded in law. It calls for not unnecessarily overburdening syndicates with investigative or control tasks and for respecting the law as written.
It is therefore up to the legislator, if it so wishes, to amend the Civil Code of Québec to impose a specific condition, but one wonders why it would add a condition that would paralyze transactions and increase the syndicate’s workload.
As the law currently stands, the co-owner’s request is sufficient to trigger the syndicate’s obligation, without any further formality.
