View cases - Stewart McKelvey

- 70 -129 Regarding the third step of the test, that is, the analysis of undue hardship,Morin J.A. stated that the appellants’ inflexible and intransigent attitude had made anyaccommodation virtually impossible. He therefore concluded that the Syndicat haddischarged its duty to accommodate by making reasonable offers to the appellants, andthat it would have suffered undue hardship had it been forced to accede to their demands.Thus, he adopted the trial judge’s findings on this point.2004 SCC 47 (CanLII)130 With respect to s. 9.1 of the Quebec Charter, Morin J.A. was of the opinionthat the trial judge had stated the law correctly when he concluded that the restrictionsimposed on the co-owners constituted reasonable limits that were justified under s. 9.1,especially since the restrictions applied to portions of the property where the right ofownership was held in common. Like Dalphond J., Morin J.A. was of the view that theappeal should be dismissed.III. Relevant Statutory Provisions131 Civil Code of Québec, S.Q. 1991, c. 64PRELIMINARY PROVISIONThe Civil Code of Québec, in harmony with the Charter of human rightsand freedoms and the general principles of law, governs persons, relationsbetween persons, and property.1056. No declaration of co-ownership may impose any restriction onthe rights of the co-owners except restrictions justified by the destination,characteristics or location of the immovable.Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, R.S.Q., c. C-12