Legal Commentary

In Investissements immobiliers PB inc. v. Syndicat des copropriétaires de la Résidence condominium du Jardin des Sables phase I[1], the Court of Appeal clarified the conditions required to modify the destination of an immovable held in co-ownership. It also defined the limits of a co-ownership syndicate’s regulatory powers.

The immovable in question, administered by the defendant, the Syndicate of Co-owners of the Résidence condominium du Jardin des Sables phase I (“Syndicate”), located in Orford, comprises 34 units. Some are used as primary residences, others as temporary secondary residences, and some for short-term rentals. The declaration of co-ownership specifies that the destination of the building is “residential, permanent or secondary, by the owner or through rental, long-term or short-term,” and that the private portions may not “be used, in whole or in part, for any commercial activity, business, or profession.”

In response to the increase in short-term rentals and the alleged nuisances reported by some co-owners (noise, frequent comings and goings, disturbances of peaceful enjoyment), the Syndicate enacted, by simple majority, a by-law imposing a minimum rental period of 32 days (“By-law R-18”). At adoption, the vote had not reached the double majority required for any decision modifying the destination of the immovable[2].

The co-owners wishing to continue engaging in short-term rentals argued that By-law R‑18 contradicted the declaration of co-ownership, which expressly authorized short-term rental use. They challenged the validity of By-law R‑18, since the required double majority had not been met. They brought proceedings before the Superior Court.

The Superior Court concluded that By-law R‑18 did not modify the destination of the immovable but merely regulated short-term rentals. It therefore ruled that the double majority was not required for its adoption.

The Court of Appeal overturned the reasoning of the Superior Court and reaffirmed that the destination of the immovable reflects the co-owners’ intention regarding the nature of the building—an intention that cannot be altered without complying with the formal requirements for adopting a by-law under the Civil Code of Québec.

In this case, the declaration of co-ownership expressly included short-term rental as part of the building’s destination. By prohibiting any rental of less than 32 days, the new By-law R‑18 effectively modified that destination. Without the requisite double majority of the co-owners’ votes, the Syndicate was therefore limited in its power to adopt such a by-law, even if its intent was to regulate nuisances (noise, security, use of common areas).

Accordingly, the Court of Appeal reaffirmed the central role of the declaration of co-ownership as a contract ensuring stability and legal certainty regarding the rights of co-owners. As a result, By-law R‑18 was declared invalid, inoperative, and unenforceable.

Key Takeaways

The destination of the immovable, as defined in the declaration of co-ownership—including uses expressly provided for, such as short-term rental—sets a limit on the regulatory authority of the co-ownership syndicate, unless a by-law is adopted with the required double majority.

That said, the co-ownership syndicate retains its powers regarding the administration of the immovable and common areas and may adopt by-laws aimed at regulating and sanctioning nuisances arising from short-term rentals.

[1] 2025 QCCA 1587.

[2] Article 1098 of the Civil Code of Québec.