Challenging an Electronic Condo AGM Vote in Quebec

Meetings held using technological means have become commonplace in divided co-ownership. When an electronic AGM vote raises concerns, a co-owner may consider challenging it. Many people immediately think of the Administrative Housing Tribunal (TAL), but it does not always have jurisdiction. In practice, a challenge to an assembly decision is generally brought before the ordinary courts, subject to the specific nature of the dispute.

Information current as of 2026-07-13.

Before taking action, methodically gather your evidence, review the declaration of co-ownership (DCV) and the by-laws of the immovable, and assess the deadlines promptly. This guide summarizes the steps, possible grounds and, above all, the evidence a court in Quebec will expect.

TAL or Superior Court? Understanding jurisdiction

• The TAL primarily handles disputes related to residential leases. Internal disputes within a divided co-ownership concerning the validity of an AGM decision generally fall under the jurisdiction of the civil courts (often the Superior Court) pursuant to the Civil Code of Quebec (C.c.Q.). Refer to the general framework of the C.c.Q. for divided co-ownership and the right to challenge an assembly decision (see section 1103 C.c.Q., LégisQuébec).
• The C.c.Q. provides for a short deadline to seek the annulment of a decision of the assembly of co-owners. You must calculate it from the time you became aware of the decision, often through the minutes. The prudent approach is to act without delay.
• Practical exception: if your dispute arises from a lease (e.g., a tenant versus a landlord regarding the use of the dwelling), the TAL may have jurisdiction. However, for the validity of an AGM vote of the syndicate, the usual avenue remains the Superior Court.

Useful references:
Civil Code of Quebec – divided co-ownership (LégisQuébec)
Act respecting the Administrative Housing Tribunal (institutional framework)
RGCQ – resources on assemblies and governance

Common grounds for challenging an electronic AGM vote

Here are grounds that are often raised and that must be established through clear, organized evidence:

• Irregular notice of meeting: incomplete notice, notice sent late or an agenda that did not reasonably allow the challenged vote.
• Quorum not reached or improperly calculated: error in the weighting of votes (shares), unverified attendance or connections, or departures during the meeting that were not counted.
• Voting rights improperly applied: co-owners in default of payment of common expenses improperly excluded or included, or proxies that did not comply with the DCV.
• Defective voting procedure: voting secrecy not respected when required, double voting, shared access links or no robust authentication.
• Significant technical failures: a substantial proportion of eligible participants were unable to connect, vote or hear the discussions.
• Failure to comply with qualified majorities: resolutions requiring an absolute majority of all co-owners (or a reinforced majority) improperly adopted by a simple majority of those present or represented.
• Incomplete or inaccurate minutes: minutes that do not accurately reflect the results, vote count, abstentions or technical incidents.
• Failure to comply with personal information protection rules in the voting process: excessive data collection, unauthorized sharing or insecure retention (see Bill 25).

Tip: always compare what actually happened with the requirements of the DCV, the by-laws of the immovable and the C.c.Q. Cite the exact clauses of your DCV in support.

Evidence to gather and preserve

Before sending a demand letter, organize a persuasive file. Courts assess the credibility, authenticity and relevance of the documents.

Essential documentary evidence

• Complete notice of meeting and agenda, including the indication that the meeting will be electronic and the technical instructions.
• The by-laws of the immovable and relevant extracts from the DCV governing meetings, proxies and majorities.
• List of co-owners entitled to vote, including the weighting of votes according to the fractions (shares).
• Attendance/connection records: electronically signed attendance sheet or platform report (timestamps, email addresses and identifiers).
• Signed minutes and all official communications from the board of directors related to the vote.
• Technical support emails, support tickets, instructions or corrections sent during the meeting.
• Proxies and voting delegations: original versions or certified copies, with proof that they were sent before the AGM if required by the DCV.

Technical and security evidence

• Audit logs from the voting platform: token creation, two-factor authentication, vote locking and vote closing.
• Error and outage reports: timestamped screenshots, session recordings and records of service interruptions (the provider’s SLA).
• Raw result exports: CSV files or official reports showing the vote count, abstentions and cancellations.
• Statements from the provider or an independent IT expert regarding the integrity of the process (ideally including a chain of custody for the data).

Testimony and context

• Written statements from co-owners who were unable to vote or who observed irregularities.
• Factual timeline: a minute-by-minute account of the incidents, including who communicated what and when.

Summary table

Best practices for preservation

• Keep the source files and their metadata; avoid modifying the originals.
• Document the chain of custody (who holds what and when).
• Use secure storage (encryption, restricted access).
• Avoid distributing personal information beyond what is necessary; redact it where appropriate.

For the legal framework:
C.c.Q. (divided co-ownership)
Act respecting the protection of personal information in the private sector (Bill 25)

Practical steps and deadlines (annulment of a vote)

1. Request the documents
   Request promptly: signed minutes, attendance sheet, result exports, audit logs and audio/video recording. Under the C.c.Q., the syndicate must keep a register accessible to co-owners.

2. Send a demand letter to the syndicate
   Set out the irregularities, the relevant provisions of the DCV/C.c.Q. and the corrective measures requested (e.g., holding the vote again, calling a replacement meeting or correcting the minutes).

3. Assess the appropriate legal remedy
   For the annulment of an AGM decision, proceedings are generally brought before the Superior Court under the C.c.Q. (see section 1103). Respect the legal deadline, often 90 days from the time you became aware of the decision. If there is imminent harm, discuss a provisional or interlocutory injunction.

4. Prepare the evidence file
   Organize the documents, prepare a witness list and attach an affidavit from a manager or IT expert if necessary. For an electronic vote, technical traceability is central.

5. Hearing and remedies sought
   Main remedies include annulment of the resolution, a declaration that the vote is null, and an order to reconvene the meeting and hold a new vote in compliance with the rules. The court may award costs depending on the outcome.

6. Post-judgment measures
   If the meeting must be held again, review the rules: notice of meeting, platform, technical testing, training for the secretary and chair of the meeting, and clear posting of voting procedures.

For administrative support and document preparation, see our administrative management services: https://www.multirent.ca/services/#gestion-administrative. We also publish practical guides on our blog: https://www.multirent.ca/blogue/.

Best practices for the board of directors to ensure reliable electronic votes

• Proven platform: choose a tool with auditability, strong authentication and integrated proxy management.
• Voter identity and one-vote enforcement: unique codes, two-factor authentication, session locking and safeguards against double-clicking.
• Procedural transparency: explain the process, majority rules and the treatment of abstentions and proxies in the notice of meeting.
• Prior technical test: a 15-minute connection session before opening, a help line and a backup plan (telephone) for interventions.
• Data protection (Bill 25): minimization, encryption, access logs and a limited retention period; avoid sharing the complete email list if it is not necessary.
• Robust, traceable minutes: attach the results report, indicate the number of votes for, against and abstentions, and note significant technical incidents and their impacts.

To establish your internal policies, the RGCQ offers resources: https://rgcq.org/ressources/ and the C.c.Q. sets out the framework for the assembly of co-owners: https://www.legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/fr/document/lc/CCQ-1991.

Frequently asked questions

Q1. What is the deadline for challenging an AGM decision?
The C.c.Q. provides for a short deadline beginning when you became aware of the decision (often through the minutes). In practice, use 90 days as a guideline and consult a lawyer promptly (see section 1103 C.c.Q.).

Q2. Can you request a recount or have the vote held again?
The court may annul the resolution and order that the meeting be reconvened. A recount will depend on the technical mechanisms and the integrity of the logs. Often, a new meeting is the clearest solution.

Q3. Are proxies permitted at an electronic meeting?
Yes, if the DCV and the by-laws authorize them and authenticity is ensured. Make sure that only one vote per fraction is cast and that the platform properly manages delegations.

This article provides general information and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a lawyer or notary regarding your situation.

Do you manage a divided co-ownership in Quebec? Discover our packages or contact us to assess your needs.