Reading the File Is the Job: What the Decisions Say About a Broker's Diligence in a Condo Sale

Published October 27, 20269 min read

In July 2017, a broker in Gatineau who held the listing for a condo also wrote the buyer's promise to purchase, conditional on her reviewing the syndicate's documents, including the minutes and the financial statements. What he received was already out of date: the minutes of a meeting held 16 months earlier, and financial statements for 2014 and 2015. He emailed them to her two days later. He never read them. The statements showed a building whose expenses exceeded its revenues. The sale closed in August. After the annual meeting in September, a special assessment (cotisation spéciale) of $2,126 came due on her unit. The following year, she received a letter about a revitalization project of about $12.5 million, with a minimum contribution of $87,754 for her unit.

The broker pleaded guilty before the discipline committee of the OACIQ to failing to advise and inform her by not reading the documents before passing them on. He paid $5,000 in fines on two counts, the other for not making sure the seller's declarations were fully completed (OACIQ c. Labbé, 2022 CanLII 42251).

Labbé was on both sides of that sale, which one broker can no longer do: since June 2022, a broker must step aside from a buyer who wants to make an offer on a property the same broker is listing (Real Estate Brokerage Act, s. 29.1). The lesson does not depend on it. The count about the documents concerned what he owed the buyer.

This article looks at what Quebec decisions say a broker owes a condo buyer, through files where the warning was in the documents. It is written for buyer-side brokers, but several of the decisions involve listing brokers, and the lessons run both ways.

The standard: prudent, diligent, and more than a messenger

The brokerage regulation, the Regulation respecting brokerage requirements, professional conduct of brokers and advertising (Règlement sur les conditions d'exercice d'une opération de courtage, sur la déontologie des courtiers et sur la publicité), sets out the core duties. A broker must act with prudence, diligence and competence (s. 62). They must advise and inform the parties objectively on all the facts relevant to the transaction (s. 83), take steps to discover the factors that could adversely affect them (s. 84), and tell them about any such factor they know of (s. 85). They must also see that the parties' rights and obligations are put in writing (s. 86).

The courts measure a broker against a reasonably prudent and diligent broker in the same circumstances. It is an obligation of means (obligation de moyens), not of result: a broker does not guarantee the building. But it is an active obligation.

In Gaudet c. Paris, 2018 QCCS 5894, the house stood in a high-risk landslide zone. The listing broker knew that a landslide had hit the neighbouring lot and that an earlier buyer had backed out after seeing it. He helped the sellers fill in declarations that mentioned neither the landslide nor the zone. The Superior Court held that a broker who sees warning signs has a positive duty to dig further and cannot rely only on what the seller says. The sale was annulled, and the broker was held liable to the buyers alongside the sellers and the notary for about $429,000. The broker did not appeal; the Court of Appeal later reviewed only the notary's part of the judgment.

In Consultants C3PR c. Investissements Lamontagne, 2022 QCCS 1031, the Superior Court summarized the duties as advising and informing objectively, looking for adverse factors, and disclosing them. It cleared the buyer's brokers: when the seller revealed buried debris after the offer was accepted, they had laid out the options (withdraw, order an environmental assessment, or test dig), and the buyer chose a price reduction instead. The court added that telling a client the deal had to go ahead, without explaining the options, would have been a fault on common sense alone.

Two tribunals, two questions

A broker can be cleared in court and disciplined by the OACIQ for the same kind of failure. The two ask different questions.

Before a court, the buyer must prove a fault, a loss and the link between them, usually with an expert on professional practice. A breach of the ethics rules is not, by itself, a civil fault (C3PR, para. 269). Before the discipline committee, the regulation is the standard, and no loss has to be proven.

Fournier c. Boisvert, 2016 QCCQ 512 shows the civil side. The buyers' offer was conditional on reviewing the declaration of co-ownership, two years of minutes of the owners' meetings and the board, and the financial statements. They had two months, and they declared themselves satisfied. The board minutes included resolutions pointing to major work, and special assessments totalling more than $15,000 followed, the first voted within a year. The court cleared the buyers' brokers: by having the buyers insist on the condition, they had protected them.

The discipline side looks different. In OACIQ c. Tremblay (Courtemanche), 2019 CanLII 8550, neither the listing broker nor the buyer's broker made sure the buyer obtained the minutes of the most recent annual meeting. Those minutes said the contingency fund (fonds de prévoyance) set aside for the balconies had dropped, that condo fees would rise, and that a special meeting was planned. Both brokers pleaded guilty and were fined $4,000 each. Labbé adds the next step: getting the documents is not enough if no one reads them.

Read together, the document review condition is what protects the buyer, and often the broker, in court. The OACIQ expects the broker to obtain the documents and read them.

Where the files went wrong

Documents not obtained, or not read. Labbé and Courtemanche are the clearest cases. The warning was in documents the broker had, or should have had.
A known assessment left out of the writing. In Élisseeva c. Aluminium C.C. inc., 2021 QCCQ 13458, the syndicate told the listing broker that a special assessment was coming, and roughly how much. He told the buyer only verbally, while the promises to purchase still said the seller had received no notice of special assessment. The assessment was voted the day the deeds were signed. The court held the broker and the seller solidarily liable for the buyer's share. Before the OACIQ, the same broker was found guilty of failing to put the parties' agreement on the assessment in writing, and his licence was suspended for 30 days (OACIQ c. Thomas, 2025 CanLII 70942; sanction, 2026 CanLII 72489). Earlier, in OACIQ c. Maynard, 2011 CanLII 99977, a listing broker attended the meeting that voted to replace the windows floor by floor at the owners' cost, while the listing still said the unit needed no renovation. He never told the buyer in writing, and pleaded guilty.
Information passed on without checking. In Côté c. Huot, 2021 QCCQ 3638, the listing said the unit came with two indoor parking spaces. One of them was on a common portion. The court held the listing broker at fault: he had to go beyond the seller's word.
Disputes not disclosed. In OACIQ c. Fortin, 2024 CanLII 138031, a listing broker did not make sure buyers were told about the syndicate's disputes with the developer, or about the extent of a 2017 water leak in the building. He pleaded guilty and received 30-day suspensions.

What protected the brokers who were cleared

The decisions that clear brokers have a pattern.

A condition with time to use it. In Kole c. Du Cap, 2020 QCCQ 2411, the offer was conditional on the declaration, the minutes, the syndicate's information and the financial statements. The documents were provided, including the papers from an annual meeting held days before the offer. The buyer's broker recommended an inspection of the common portions; the buyers declined. The assessments came two years later, and no fault was found against either broker. Fournier follows the same pattern.
Questions asked in writing. In Mattheis c. Mansour, 2025 QCCQ 3214, the buyers' broker pointed them to the key answers in the seller's declarations, including whether a special assessment was expected, and raised questions about the masonry work in the board's report. The seller, who sat on the syndicate's board, answered in writing that the work was "planned and funded". It was not: the assessment he said he had paid was for the elevators. His written answer became central evidence, and the buyers recovered about $51,800 from him for fraud by silence (dol par réticence). The broker was not sued.
Options laid out. In C3PR, the brokers explained the client's options when a problem surfaced, and the court did not second-guess the client's choice.
Follow-up you can prove. In OACIQ c. Guessous, 2021 CanLII 60933, a buyer's broker had made the offer conditional on four years of minutes and received only one. He was acquitted on that count: neither side had a written record of what was asked or sent, and the committee could not tell whom to believe. A written request would have settled it.

What is expected today

Since 2025, the seller must give the promising buyer an attestation from the syndicate on the state of the co-ownership (art. 1068.1 C.c.Q.). The OACIQ's guidance on the new co-ownership rules asks brokers to request the attestation as soon as the brokerage contract is signed, check that it contains everything the regulation requires, discuss it with the client and refer them to a legal professional where needed. If it is not available when the offer is made, it should be a condition of the promise to purchase, allowing for the syndicate's 15-day deadline. The OACIQ adds that the request for information to the syndicate is still useful.

The attestation is a summary, not a substitute for the file. In its comments on the draft regulation, the Barreau du Québec asked that it include items brokers already request from the syndicate, such as the arrears owed on the unit being sold. The final regulation does not require that, and it lists only disputes already before a court (s. 10). Our article on the syndicate's attestation covers what it contains, and our articles on the minutes and the financial statements show where the warnings in these decisions would have appeared.

What to do with it

Make the promise to purchase conditional on the attestation, the declaration of co-ownership, the minutes of the owners' meetings and of the board, and the financial statements, with enough time to read them.
Read every document before sending it to your buyer, and note what you found.
Ask the seller and the syndicate in writing about anything the documents raise: a proposed assessment, planned work, disputes, a meeting before closing.
Put any agreement on who pays a known or voted assessment in the promise to purchase or an amendment, never only in a conversation.
When a document raises a risk, set out your buyer's options in writing: the price, a condition, more verification, or walking away.
Recommend an inspection, and an expert where the file calls for one.
Keep a record of what you asked for, what you received, and when.

A note on these decisions: most of the civil judgments come from the Court of Québec, several from its small claims division, so they show how judges apply the standard rather than binding precedent. Several of the discipline decisions are guilty pleas. Each decision is linked above; read it before relying on it.

Sources

Read the whole file, not one document.

Quotepart reads the syndicate's documents with you. It lists what's missing, cites every finding to its page, and keeps a dated record of what you reviewed. The reading and the advice stay yours; the record is easier to keep. Your first file is free.

Get early access

This article is for general information only and is not legal advice.

This article was written with the help of AI tools, then reviewed and checked against the laws, regulations and decisions it cites by the Quotepart team.