Short-term rentals in co-ownership: the Court of Appeal invalidates a by-law

The Court of Appeal has just rendered a major decision in the field of divided co-ownership in Quebec, confirming that a syndicate cannot modify the minimum rental period when such a modification alters the destination of the immovable, without obtaining the double majority required under article 1098 of the Civil Code of Quebec. This decision deserves particular attention from syndicates and co-owners, given current practices, as it reaffirms the limits of the power to modify the declaration of co-ownership when the very destination of the immovable is at stake. It fits within a line of jurisprudence calling for greater rigour in the adoption of by-laws.

Challenge to by-law R-18 and infringement of the immovable’s destination

In this case, several co-owners challenged the validity of by-law R-18, adopted in 2022 by an absolute majority, which imposed a minimum rental period of 32 days. By doing so, the by-law prohibited any rental of 31 days or less.

Yet, the declaration of co-ownership, published in 1988, expressly defines the destination of the immovable as residential, permanent or secondary, whether occupancy is personal or by rental, long-term or short-term. Short-term rental is therefore explicitly integrated as a component of the immovable’s destination, conferring on co-owners a genuine right of use contractually guaranteed.

This situation clearly distinguishes the present file from the Kilzi decision, in which the declaration of co-ownership did not specifically recognize short-term rental. In the present case, by-law R-18 did not merely regulate an existing use: it removed a modality expressly provided for in the declaration, thus altering the destination of the immovable.

The dispute: a by-law adopted at the wrong threshold

Faced with nuisances reported by certain co-owners, the syndicate had proposed to “modulate” short-term rentals by imposing a minimum threshold of 32 days. By-law R-18 was adopted by 66.50% of the votes of the co-owners present, i.e. an absolute majority (art. 1096 of the Civil Code of Quebec). The trial judge had concluded that the by-law did not modify the destination of the immovable, but merely regulated rentals.

The Court of Appeal corrects: this is a change of destination

The Court of Appeal, in reasons written by Justice Sophie Lavallée, overturned that judgment. She concluded that:

• The declaration of co-ownership expressly includes short-term rental in the destination of the immovable.
• The prohibition on renting for a period of less than 32 days constitutes a significant infringement of the right to rent short-term.
• Such a limitation amounts to modifying the destination of the immovable, which requires the double majority provided for under article 1098 of the Civil Code of Quebec.
• The destination of the immovable is one of the factors used to limit the prerogatives of the collective and the individual rights of co-owners.
• By-law R-18 is therefore invalid, inoperative and unenforceable against the appellant co-owners.

The Court stressed that this amendment cannot be presented as a mere regulation — it transforms the permitted use of the unit, since it excludes precisely what the declaration authorizes.

Acquired rights and municipal context

The case arose in a context where the municipality had revised its zoning in 2023 to prohibit rentals of 31 days and less. The appellant co-owners, long-standing owners, nevertheless enjoyed acquired rights allowing them to continue their short-term rentals.

The syndicate’s internal by-law therefore restricted a use that was:

• authorized by the declaration;
• historically exercised since 1988;
• protected by municipal acquired rights.

This contradiction strengthened the Court’s conclusion that the by-law was not merely a disciplinary tool, but indeed a structural modification of the destination.

Scope of the ruling

The ruling reminds us that:

• The declaration of co-ownership constitutes a contract: it may only be derogated from in the cases provided by law.
• When the syndicate seeks to limit a right explicitly provided for in the declaration (such as short-term rental), it must follow the strict formalism imposed by the Civil Code of Quebec.
• The absolute majority (art. 1096 C.c.Q.) suffices only for minor adjustments.
• As soon as a measure restricts one of the attributes of the right of ownership recognized in the declaration, it risks constituting a change of destination, subject to article 1098 C.c.Q.

The ruling thus draws a clear line between:

• The regulation of behaviours (nuisances, noise, neighbour disturbances), which the syndicate may manage via its by-laws; and
• The modification of the very use of the units, which requires the double majority.

Conclusion

This decision marks an important reminder: a syndicate cannot free itself from the majority thresholds provided in the Civil Code of Quebec when the measure envisaged genuinely concerns the destination of the immovable. The ruling strengthens legal certainty for co-owners and confirms the primacy of the contract that is the declaration of co-ownership.

To view the full judgment, visit the following link: Investissements immobiliers PB inc. v. Syndicat des copropriétaires du Jardin des Sables phase I, 2025 QCCA 1587 (December 8, 2025)