Deschenes v. Dauray (Quebec Provincial Court)

The Plaintiff, Deschenes, purchased a condominium unit from the defendant Dauray.  Deschenes then sued both the defendant, and the Syndicat for alleged misrepresentations made during the sale negotiations.   Dauray was also a member of the Syndicat’s board of directors during the negotiations.  Deschenes alleged that:

• Dauray misrepresented that the unit was assigned an exclusive use locker; where, in actuality, the locker in question was only “borrowed” for use, until such time as the Syndicat required the use of the locker.  The evidence was that Dauray had shown the locker to Deschenes on several occasions and had given Deschenes keys to the locker at the time of closing; and

• Dauray had also represented that, although there had been issues with flooding at the complex in the past, the Syndicat had recently undertaken renovations, and the issues were resolved.

Deschenes also argued that Dauray was acting in his capacity as a director of the Syndicat when he made these representations.

At a later date, after Deschenes moved in, he was asked to remove his items from the locker.   In addition, the Syndicat learned that the renovations which had been performed were deficient and, consequently, the Syndicat was required to levy two special assessments. As a result, Deschenes sued Dauray for lost market value of his unit and for inconvenience.  He also sued Dauray and the Syndicat for recovery of the amounts paid for the special assessments.

The Plaintiff’s claims were dismissed.

The Court accepted Dauray’s evidence that, although he had shown the plaintiff the locker and had given the plaintiff keys to the locker, he had also told the plaintiff that the locker was “borrowed”, and was not for the exclusive use of the unit. Furthermore, there was no indication in any of the written documentation that the unit included an exclusive-use locker.

The Court also found that there was no reason for Dauray to suspect, at the time of the sales negotiations, that the renovations made by the Syndicat were deficient, as they appeared to have solved the flooding problems at that time. Consequently, it could not be said that Dauray had made false representations respecting the flooding problems.

The evidence (in this particular case) also failed to show that Dauray was acting in his capacity as a board member when he made the representations regarding the building renovations.