Même si elle n'est pas l'ultime propriétaire d'un immeuble, la personne qui apparaît au registre à titre de propriétaire a l'intérêt pour intenter des procédures judiciaires

par Karim Renno

Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt s.e.n.c.r.l./s.r.l.

En droit civil, on dira généralement qu'a l'intérêt pour agir la partie demanderesse qui a un intérêt direct et personnel dans l'issue du litige. Qu'en est-il alors de la personne qui agit pour le compte d'autres personnes à titre de propriétaire enregistré? Dans la décision récente rendue dans Em-Yo Properties Inc. c. Lessard (2011 QCCS 3179), la Cour supérieure confirme qu'une telle personne a l'intérêt pour intenter des procédures relatives à la propriété en question.


Dans la présente affaire, la Demanderesse intente une action en dommages suite à l'acceptation non autorisée d'une offre d'achat d'un immeuble. La Demanderesse est la propriétaire enregistrée de l'immeuble en question, mais pas l'ultime propriétaire (elle agit pour le compte d'autres personnes). Une des questions préliminaires est celle de savoir si la Demanderesse a l'intérêt pour agir.

Saisi de la question, l'Honorable juge William Fraiberg note d'abord qu'il n'y a rien d'inusité à ce que le propriétaire enregistré d'un immeuble n'en soit pas l'ultime propriétaire et que cela n'affecte pas l'intérêt pour agir du premier:

[133] At civil law, ownership necessarily vests sufficient legal interest in the owner to be party to an action to exercise the rights attaching to the ownership where the owner is otherwise capable.

[134] By contract falling short of a transfer of title, an owner might agree to hold property for the ultimate and complete benefit of others, inclusive of the right to direct its sale or encumbrance. Yet, in Quebec, despite this contractually mandated flow-through of benefits to others, the apparent owner retains the right to bring and defend actions concerning the property against third parties, even those who may be aware of the arrangement.

[135] The Superior Court case of Mackenzie House Apartments Inc. v. Schéré confirms the sufficient interest under section 55 C.C.P. of a registered owner to sue for monetary claims arising from its administration of an immovable property held for the ultimate benefit of investors, who are uninvolved in the administration while entitled to steady investment returns:

The declaration of trust designates Plaintiff as a “trustee”, quite obviously a term borrowed from the common law. While under Quebec law a beneficial ownership and legal title are invariably vested in the same person, the common law recognizes that each may vest separately as here; beneficial ownership is vested in Canada ltd., while legal title is vested in Mackenzie House. […]

Thus we see that the agent [Plaintiff] is not simply the mandatary under our civil law. It enjoys an existence “beaucoup plus autonome” and its judicial status is such as to permit it to sue on behalf of the beneficial owner as it has. […] On this ground too, I would conclude that the Plaintiff has the necessary interest to institute these proceedings.

Ainsi, même un prête-nom a l'intérêt requis pour agir:

[138] As the late Justice Maurice Laramée observed in the case of Théoret v. Robert,[6] in Quebec there is no difference between legal ownership and beneficial ownership. There is only ownership.

[139] Even if an owner obliges himself to impart some or even all of the benefits of ownership to others, he remains the owner and thus has the legal interest to bring an action that derives from the ownership or its consequences.

[140] Indeed, he is the only one who may do so. In relation to the world at large, it is he who bears the burdens and reaps the benefits of ownership.

[141] The fact that Em-Yo will have to distribute any damages awarded by the Court to the Owners because of the Co-Tenancy Agreement does not deprive it of standing to sue for them in its own name.

Le texte intégral du jugement est disponible ici: http://bit.ly/meRSVj

Référence neutre: [2011] ABD 220

Autres décisions citées dans le présent billet:

1. Mackenzie House Apartments Inc. c. Schéré, J.E. 96-1692 (C.S.).

2. Théoret c. Robert, J.E. 2000-1220 (C.S.).