In the context of a dispute between a co-owner and their syndicate, in a judgment rendered on May 20, 2025, by the Honourable Judge Sylvain Lussier of the Superior Court of Quebec, the Court considered an application for the annulment of resolutions adopted by the general meeting of co-owners of the condominium "Les Dauphins-sur-le-Parc" in Montréal. This case highlights two fundamental issues in co-ownership law: the exercise of co-owners’ rights in case of a decision deemed abusive, and the strict application of the 90-day forfeiture period set out in article 1103 of the Civil Code of Quebec.
Background of the Case
Mr. Luc Doré, co-owner of a unit in this 417-unit complex, filed an application to annul three amendments adopted at the meetings held on June 11 and July 8, 2024. These amendments directly affected the right to rent or occupy the units flexibly, imposing, among other things:
Mr. Doré argued that these restrictions were abusive, unjustified by the destination of the building, and in violation of his rights guaranteed by articles 1056 and 1063 C.c.Q.
The 90-Day Deadline Issue: An Absolute Cut-Off
Article 1103 C.c.Q. provides that a co-owner may apply to the court to annul a decision of the meeting within 90 days following the assembly. This time limit, described as a forfeiture period, is strict and allows no exceptions, even if the co-owner did not attend the meeting or received the minutes only several weeks later.
In this case, the Court ruled that Mr. Doré’s application regarding the June 11, 2024 resolution was filed after the deadline. The filing, made 91 days after the meeting, was late, even though the last day fell on a Sunday. The judge emphasized that one must not confuse a forfeiture period with a prescriptive period. He further noted that the forfeiture period in article 1103 C.c.Q. is of public order and cannot be extended or suspended. The Court is even required to raise the issue on its own initiative. The strictness of this rule is explained by the legislator’s intent to ensure the stability of decisions adopted by the meeting of co-owners.
Other Aspects of the Application
About the resolution adopted on July 8, 2024, the Court accepted that Mr. Doré’s late correction to his application—by adding certain initially omitted paragraphs—constituted a simple clerical error and held that the challenge had been filed within the time limit. The legal proceeding may therefore continue on this point.
However, the judge dismissed the co-owner’s purely declaratory conclusions, finding that they cannot be used to bypass the strict deadline of article 1103 C.c.Q.
The Co-owner’s Interest
The Syndicate also argued that Mr. Doré had no interest in contesting the moratorium since he was neither a new co-owner nor an occupant. The Court rejected this argument. It recognized that even if the harm is not immediate, a co-owner may have a sufficient interest if it can be foreseen that a rule could cause harm, for exemple when reselling the unit.
A Clear Lesson for Co-owners
This decision is important because it reminds all co-owners that they must be extremely vigilant with respect to the deadlines set out in the Civil Code when contesting a decision of the meeting. The slightest miscalculation or administrative oversight can be fatal to a legal proceeding. In co-ownership matters, reactivity is therefore essential.
Conclusion
The judgment rendered in the case of Doré v. Les Dauphins-sur-le-Parc rigorously illustrates the application of the forfeiture period in co-ownership law and the limits of declaratory proceeding. It also confirms that the right of ownership includes a right of enjoyment that may be limited, but only in accordance with the destination of the building and the fundamental rights of co-owners.
To consult the full decision, visit the following link: Doré v. Les Dauphins-sur-le-Parc, 2025 QCCS 1630 (CanLlI).
