Claim for damages by a co-owner – breakage of a pipe located in the common portions - damage to the private portion - repair by a contractor hired by the co-owner – work authorized by the syndicate – objection to the cost by the syndicate - offer of a lesser amount
• The plaintiff co-owner files a damage claim against the Syndicate and the manager of the building for 2 073,89$ representing the costs of repair work following water infiltrations in his condominium unit.
• The defendants contest the amount claimed- and offer the sum of 1300$ for the work done.
The Court orders the syndicate to pay the full amount claimed and dismisses the claim against the manager for the following reasons:
• The evidence presented shows that the co-owner's condominium unit applicant suffered damage from a water leak. The applicant hired the services of a contractor who discovers that the source of the leak is a break in the plumbing of the building.-
• All the parties admit that this broken pipe is located in a common area which which is the syndicate's responsibility.
• The manager of the co-ownership was informed of the break and authorized the applicant to have a contractor perform all work relating to this pipe and the damage to his unit.
• The contractor hired by the applicant was not asked for an estimate, and at the same time carries out other work inside his unit.
• Once the work is completed, the applicant received an invoice from his contractor which he forwarded to the Syndicate for payment.
• The Syndicate's representatives contest the invoiced amount and ask for a breakdown of the costs of labour and materials. According to the co-owner such a breakdown isn't possible because it was an all-inclusive contract.
• The Syndicate contests the amount claimed by the co-owner by comparing it to more extensive work done in a neighbouring building at a lesser cost. The Court dismisses this argument.
• The evidence shows that the syndicate's manager authorized the applicant to have the work carried out to solve the water leak problem originating from a common area without setting a budget and without first requiring an estimate.
• The Court finds no reason to question the co-owner's good faith as he paid his contractor the sum of 2 073,89 $ for the completion of the work in question.
• If the Syndicate finds the cost too high it should have hired its own contractor or asked for an estimate before starting the work.
• The Court finds no reason for the Syndicate to dispute the total amount actually paid by the co-owner for work which solved the water leak problem at its source and the repaired the damage caused.
• There is no fault in the way the co-owner proceeded.
• The Court finds that there are no legal ties between the co-owner and the management company in the context of this file and as a result must dismiss the claim against the manager, and uses its discretion to do so without awarding court costs.
• The Court finds that the co-owner has proved his claim against the Syndicate, to the amount of 2 073,89$, plus interest, additional indemnity and court costs.