Article 7 of the Charter of human rights and freedoms guarantees the inviolability of a person's home. In principle, no one may have access to a co-owner's apartment without his or her consent. However, it has been rightfully ruled that this rule is not absolute. For this reason, most declarations of co-ownership require co-owners, tenants, or occupants to provide a duplicate set of keys to the board of directors or to the person mandated to preserve the keys. This requirement primarily serves to ensure rapid intervention in emergencies, which could otherwise cause significant damage to the building and neighboring units.
Legal framework for access to private portions
The declaration of co-ownership generally stipulates that every co-owner, tenant, or occupant must provide a duplicate key to the syndicate. However, access to a unit is only permitted under specific circumstances, such as a fire or an urgent intervention due to a broken pipe, electrical failure, broken window, water damage, or rainwater infiltration.
In this context, the Superior Court of Québec ruled that this did not violate the Charter of human rights and freedoms (C.h.r.f.) regarding the right to the enjoyment of property (section 6 C.h.r.f.) and the inviolability of a person's home (sections 7 and 8 C.h.r.f.).This decision is based on articles 1062 and 1066 of the Civil Code of Québecc, which govern the maintenance of common portions and the obligation of co-owners to collaborate in building management.
However, except in emergencies, directors of syndicate cannot access a unit without a valid reason. Any intervention must be preceded by a notice respecting the timelines set in the declaration of co-ownership and, when required, the co-owner’s consent. It would therefore be illegal to enter a unit based on mere suspicion of unauthorized work without prior notification to the co-owner.
Alarm system
Furthermore, the declaration of co-ownership usually mentions that if the residential unit is equipped with an alarm system, the access code must be disclosed to the directors because by failing to do so, a syndicate can't be blamed for triggering the alarm system; the concerned co-owner would therefore assume the resulting repair costs as well as any other related invoice. It should be noted that several municipal regulations contain a fine for any false alarm on account of the police being called to the scene.
Consequences of failing to comply with the obligation: A landmark judicial decision
The rules governing the provision of keys or alarm codes are unfortunately not always followed by co-owners. However, in emergencies, the absence of this information can delay a critical intervention, endangering both the safety of occupants and the integrity of the building.
A breach with serious consequences
In the case of Syndicat des copropriétaires du 1200 Ouest c. Sarhan (2025 QCCS 434), the Superior Court emphasized the severe consequences of failing to comply with this obligation. A co-owner who refused to provide a duplicate set of keys delayed the syndicate’s intervention during a water leak. This omission exacerbated the damage, resulting in a court ruling requiring the co-owner to pay $50,000 in damages.
A shared responsibility
However, the court also criticized the syndicate for its lack of diligence in enforcing the provisions of the declaration of co-ownership. As a result, liability for the damages was shared equally between the co-owner and the syndicate. Of the $100,000 insurance deductible claimed by the syndicate, it was required to cover half—$50,000. This financial burden was ultimately distributed among all co-owners in proportion to the relative value of their units.
A call for vigilance
This ruling highlights the importance for the syndicate’s administrators to strictly enforce the declaration of co-ownership. Any negligence in this regard can lead to significant financial consequences for all co-owners.
WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW! In the event of a fire or water damage, having access to an apartment key is essential to ensure a swift intervention, rather than relying on firefighters to forcibly break down the door. Similarly, in case of lost keys, a co-owner or occupant may find it more convenient to borrow the spare key held by the syndicate rather than hiring a locksmith.
WHAT TO KEEP IN MIND: A syndicate is not prohibited from holding a duplicate set of keys to a co-owner’s apartment. On the contrary, this is a formal obligation included in most declarations of co-ownership, which all must respect. However, syndicate representatives are only authorized to enter a private unit in case of an emergency, such as—though not limited to—a fire, a burst pipe, an electrical failure, broken windows, or water infiltration due to flooding or other causes.
WARNING! A co-owner who refuses to provide a key to their private unit may be held civilly liable. They could be held responsible for damages resulting from the inability to gain timely access to their unit, as demonstrated by the Superior Court’s ruling in Syndicat des copropriétaires du 1200 Ouest c. Sarhan (2025 QCCS 434.
CONSULT A Key and access code handover form
