A co-owner caused water damage while carrying out work inside his unit. The syndicate of co-ownership sued the co-owner and his insurer. The court ruled in its favour, but reduced the amount the defendants must pay, finding that some elements of the claim were excessive.

The loss occurred on October 18, 2023. Justin Orleans, co-owner of Unit 1 in the condominium, was installing a shelf above the toilet in the bathroom of his unit with his then-partner. During the work, the water supply pipe was punctured, resulting in water damage to two neighbouring units.

Water continued to flow for 10 to 15 minutes because the occupants of the unit did not know where the water shut-off valve was located. The administrator of Syndicat de la copropriété Kubik phase 2, the plaintiff in this case, had to intervene to shut off the water.

Insurer refuses to pay

The co-owner and his insurer, Prysm General Insurance, are the defendants in the dispute. Mr. Orleans argued that he was not at fault because he installed the shelf in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions and used the parts supplied to secure it.

The defendants also argued that the water supply pipe had not been installed according to accepted trade practices and that the damages claimed were grossly exaggerated. The syndicate’s claim totalled $69,542.69.

The defendants also argued that the penalty clauses in the Declaration of Co-ownership were inapplicable. In their view, interest of 2% per month and 26.82% per year was also illegal and abusive.

The case was heard by Court of Quebec Justice Karine Beaudry on March 12 and 13, 2026, in Montreal. The matter was taken under advisement on April 10, 2026, following the filing of additional submissions by the parties.

Her decision was rendered on September 2 and is only available in French. In it, the court ruled in favour of the syndicate of co-ownership. However, the amount the defendants must pay was reduced because some of the amounts claimed by the plaintiff were either not allowed or were adjusted by the court.

Analysis of the circumstances

Justice Beaudry concluded that the co-owner was at fault and that the plaintiff must be compensated for the cost of repairing the damage caused by Mr. Orleans’ actions.

Neither Orleans nor his partner, who assisted him with the installation, had any knowledge of or experience in construction. They did not seek authorization from the syndicate before proceeding with the installation. The defendant did not consult the unit’s plans to determine whether there was a water pipe in the wall. Yet all the plumbing fixtures — the bathtub, shower head, sink and toilet — were located along the same wall where the shelf was to be installed.

The occupants of the unit said they followed the manufacturer’s instructions, including by using a drill with a bit of unspecified length to install the anchors. “They are nevertheless of the view that the installation would be more secure if the shelf were screwed directly into wooden studs rather than secured with the anchors,” the court wrote.

The first shelf support was installed without incident. For the second, they thought they had detected a wooden stud, but it was actually a piece of plywood installed between the wall’s metal studs to secure the drywall panels. The toilet’s water supply pipe rested against it.

The pipe was likely punctured by the drill bit that was used. The plumber who acted as an expert for the defendants maintained that the puncture was attributable to a failure to comply with construction standards and accepted trade practices. He said a metal plate should have been installed between the plywood and the pipe.

These allegations were contradicted by the plaintiff’s expert, and the court concluded that the installation was compliant. Moreover, before drilling into the wall, the defendant took no steps to locate the pipe. He did not make inquiries with the syndicate before carrying out the work.

In addition, Mr. Orleans did not follow the shelf installation instructions when he decided to secure it directly into what he thought was a stud rather than use the anchors supplied by the manufacturer. Both experts pointed out that had he used the anchors, the pipe would not have been punctured.

The court found that the defendant’s fault caused damage to his private portion as well as those of his neighbours. He therefore contravened the Declaration of Co-ownership.

Claim for the work

The emergency work and repairs were estimated at $23,960.06, including amounts paid to the firm hired to dry out the units, the plumber and the firm responsible for the restoration work. Because the insurance policy covering the syndicate has a $25,000 deductible, the amount was not claimed from the syndicate’s insurer.

At trial, the syndicate confirmed that the invoices had been paid but produced no proof of payment. The defendants disputed the quantum of the damages claimed for this work, as well as the other amounts included in the claim.

The insurer’s building estimator testified at trial and disputed the invoice for drying out the units. The court rejected his arguments and awarded the amount claimed, as it did for the plumber’s repair of the pipe.

However, the court found that the invoice from the contractor responsible for the renovations was not sufficiently detailed. The invoice indicated only the overall cost of the work performed in each unit, along with an approximate duration. It did not indicate the hourly rate or the trades involved in the work. The photographs provided by the plaintiff did not help the court clarify the matter.

Justice Beaudry noted that it was impossible to determine why the work carried out in the neighbouring units cost more. Part of the flooring in Unit 1 had to be replaced, which was not the case for the other two units. The insurer’s estimate of the cost of the work was accepted. The amount awarded for the emergency work and repairs totalled $20,833.67.

Other fees

In addition, the plaintiff sought payment of late-payment penalties and interest, legal costs already incurred and management fees. The amounts claimed exceeded $45,000, nearly twice the amount claimed for the work.

For extrajudicial fees and disbursements, the syndicate relied on article 107 of the Declaration of Co-ownership. According to the court, the purpose of the clause “is clearly to prevent the co-owners as a whole from having to bear the consequences of one co-owner’s failure to comply with the Declaration of Co-ownership,” which is the situation in this dispute.

The court found the penalty clause to be valid but held that it was up to the syndicate to establish that the fees claimed were reasonable. In this regard, the court “cannot conceive that the syndicate would have agreed to incur fees of $28,102.76 to recover a maximum amount of $23,960.06 were it not for the existence of such a clause, which in itself demonstrates the unreasonable nature of the fees incurred.”

However, the court noted that had the damages claimed been paid from the outset, the syndicate would not have had to bring the proceeding. Exercising its discretion, the court reduced the extrajudicial fees to which the plaintiff was entitled and set them at $17,500.

Late-payment charges

Finally, article 173 of the Declaration of Co-ownership provides for an interest rate of 2% per month, or 26.82% per year, on arrears of any required instalment or payment, from the date they become due. The syndicate’s claim totalled $17,127.76.

In another case decided in 2026 in which a similar clause was challenged, the court reduced the applicable interest to the legal rate of 5%, finding the interest rate stipulated in the clause to be unreasonable and abusive. For the repair work, interest will apply as of May 22, 2024, the deadline set out in the demand letter.

As for the interest payable on the extrajudicial fees, it is also limited to the legal rate of 5% and applies from the date of the judgment. The additional indemnity is awarded on all amounts ordered to be paid.

According to the court, insurer Prysm is just as liable as the insured to indemnify the plaintiff. Mr. Orleans could not settle the dispute without the insurer’s consent and, consequently, does not have to pay the fees alone, as they were incurred because of the insurer’s refusal to pay the damages claimed by the syndicate.

The insurance policy provides liability coverage through Prysm and has no deductible. The court determined that Orleans’ share of the amount awarded is 0% and the insurer’s share is 100%.

Finally, the expert fees for the professional retained by the plaintiff are limited to $3,407.54. Court costs are also payable by the defendants.