View cases - Stewart McKelvey

- 92 -access routes too much if certain conditions are complied with cannot be accepted at thispoint in the analysis, as it is based on the concept of reasonable accommodation, whichis inapplicable in the context of s. 9.1.171 The respondent also submits that allowing succahs on balconies, patios orporches would compromise safety and, according to its insurer, would be considered anincreased risk that could cause its insurance to be suspended. In a letter dated October2004 SCC 47 (CanLII)15, 1997, the senior underwriter for business insurance at the Canadian GeneralInsurance Company wrote the following:[TRANSLATION] This is to confirm that we cannot agree to cover anyliability resulting from the construction of a shelter or small structure on thepremises belonging to the insured, be they on the adjacent land or onbalconies. This would be an increase of risk in terms of coverage for thirdpartyliability and fires.In reconciling the rights at issue here, the Syndicat’s interest in maintaining its insurancecoverage and avoiding an increase of risk with respect to both the common and privateportions of Place Northcrest must be taken into account.172 Finally, it should be noted that all the co-owners have an interest inmaintaining harmony in the co-owned property and an undivided right therein, especiallywith respect to a common portion reserved for restricted use in which, by contract, theyhave a collective right of ownership. Reconciliation cannot amount to a simple requestmade to the co-owners to renounce their rights in the common portion consisting of thebalconies. Co-owners have the right to expect contracts to be respected; this expectationis also consistent with the general interest of the citizens of Quebec.