Water damage in condominium buildings associated with plumbing or equipment failures is a real scourge. It accounts for a significant share of losses covered by home insurance products. Three recent cases show that condominium syndicates do not always succeed in proving the liability of the co-owner targeted by a claim.

In these cases, decided by the Small Claims Division of the Court of Québec, water damage occurred in a condominium building. The condominium syndicate sued the owner of the unit allegedly responsible for the damage. The court dismissed the claims, finding there was no evidence that the defendants were at fault.

An unstable drain

The first case identified by the Insurance Portal was heard in Montreal on April 20, 2026, by Justice Julie Philippe. The syndicate sought $13,333.47 from the defendants for emergency response, drying and reconstruction work, as well as extrajudicial fees.

On September 8, 2023, in Montreal, a unit in the building was damaged by water. According to an investigation conducted by the Syndicat des copropriétaires du Manoir II, the plaintiff in the case, the source of the water infiltration was the drain in unit 1406, where the defendants, Reza Ahmadi and Parisa Reisi, lived. Desjardins General Insurance was a voluntary intervenor in the case.

The drain was unstable and needed to be replaced, the syndicate alleged. In the report filed by the plaintiff, the plumber stated that the plumbing was also unstable and needed to be replaced to stop the water leak. The syndicate added that the situation was foreseeable and that the defendants should have carried out the required repairs before the loss occurred.

However, in its decision rendered on July 31, 2026, and published only in French, the court found that the evidence did not support such a conclusion. The syndicate representative who testified at the hearing had no direct knowledge of the facts and relied on documentation provided by the syndicate. In addition, the exhibits filed by the syndicate did not support the theory underlying the case.

Cause unknown

Sinistrol was retained to carry out the emergency work. According to the court, its report did not establish the actual cause of the loss. It referred to the drain in the defendants’ unit but indicated that the problem had been resolved by the time employees of the disaster restoration firm arrived.

Moreover, the report did not mention any damage in unit 1406. The defendants confirmed this and “testified very credibly” that they had not carried out any repairs in connection with the loss.

The syndicate filed an invoice from a company, dated a few days before the loss, following work performed in unit 1406. The drain problem was mentioned on the invoice. The plaintiff’s representative claimed that the invoice had been sent to the defendants. This would have confirmed that they were aware of the situation.

However, the co-owners of unit 1406 said they had not retained the company’s services and had not been informed of the outcome of the visit. They became aware of the invoice when it was filed by the plaintiff. The invoice was, in fact, made out to the syndicate.

The court concluded that the defendants were unaware of any problem that could have caused water damage in the neighbouring unit. In the circumstances, they could not have known “that they needed to take any action, whether to maintain or repair a component.” Moreover, no repairs were made in the defendants’ unit following the loss.

Because they had committed no fault, they had not breached their obligation to maintain the equipment in their unit, the court found in dismissing the syndicate’s claim.

Broken pipe

In the second case, the parties were heard on April 7, 2026, in Montreal by Justice Johanne Gagnon of the Court of Québec. A broken toilet supply pipe was at the root of the dispute. The water leak occurred on August 5, 2021.

The plaintiff was the Syndicat de la copropriété Les Jardins du Luxembourg Phase III. It alleged that the co-owners, Guy Philippe Décarie and Michèle Long, were required to compensate it for the damage caused by the water leak. The defendants were insured by Intact Insurance Company, which was a voluntary conservatory intervenor in the case.

The co-owners contested the claim, arguing that they had committed no fault that could give rise to liability for the damage resulting from the loss. They also maintained that the amounts claimed were excessive. The judgment, however, did not specify the amount being claimed from them.

In its August 6, 2026 judgment, the court dismissed the syndicate’s claim because of the “unclear and contradictory” evidence regarding the cause of the leak. Justice Gagnon addressed the presumption established by article 1465 of the Civil Code of Québec, which requires the custodian of property to demonstrate that they acted as a prudent and diligent person and took reasonable steps to prevent the event that caused the damage.

Renovation in 2011

The syndicate based its claim on a report by an estimator from a firm tasked with restoring the damaged premises. The expert stated that the water leak was caused by the supply pipe located behind the wall where a wall-mounted toilet had been installed by the co-owners when they renovated their bathroom in 2011.

The defendants argued instead that the leak was caused by the insufficient length of the drain sleeve, which prevented it from extending into the drain. The plumber they consulted confirmed that the sleeve’s watertight seal was possibly cracked.

The parties’ experts did not testify before the court, leaving Justice Gagnon with only their written reports to analyze. She noted that she was not a plumbing expert and knew nothing about the training or qualifications of the people who had prepared the documents at the parties’ request.

The plaintiff’s expert estimate repeatedly contained the words “with all reservations and without prejudice.” As for the letter provided by the defendants’ expert, it did not establish who owned the components in question or whether the issue resulted from a defect or human error during installation of the toilet.

Because the syndicate had not established on a balance of probabilities that the loss was caused by the failure of property belonging to the defendants, its claim had to fail, according to the court.

In addition, the estimate prepared by the plaintiff’s expert stated that the damage observed was “sudden and accidental.” In such circumstances, a co-owner is generally not held liable in the absence of a wrongful act or negligence in the custody of the property. The claim was dismissed, with each party bearing its own legal costs.

The used washing machine

The third case identified by the Insurance Portal was decided by Justice Eliana Marengo of the Court of Québec on August 14 in Montreal. Following water damage caused by the failure of a washing machine, the syndicate sought $10,689.85 from the co-owner to cover the cost of its insurance deductible and the costs of managing the loss.

In this case, the plaintiff was the Syndicat des copropriétaires 1408 et 1410 Pauline-Julien, which sued the defendant, Sara Morin. Desjardins General Insurance was named as a voluntary conservatory intervenor in the case.

The loss occurred on September 25, 2024. An expert report submitted by the defendant confirmed that the appliance failed due to normal wear and aging of its components, resulting in a mechanical failure.

Although the washing machine had been purchased approximately 13 years earlier, the defendant stated that she had never noticed any signs of such a failure. The expert confirmed that the worn components were not visible to the naked eye and that it was plausible that she had been unaware of the wear or the problem.

“In short, it is clear that the defendant committed no fault in this case,” the court wrote in its August 26, 2026 judgment. Justice Marengo then listed the relevant provisions of the Civil Code of Québec applicable to condominiums, including article 1465, mentioned in the second case above.

Article 1074.2 of the Civil Code specifies that the syndicate cannot recover amounts paid to repair the damage from the co-owner unless the co-owner or another person having custody of the property committed a fault.

The syndicate had an insurable interest in the defendant’s private portion. It was responsible for carrying out the necessary repairs, which it did. In the absence of any fault by the defendant, the repairs described in the exhibits filed by the plaintiff were at the syndicate’s expense, the court concluded in dismissing the claim.