Condominium Authority Tribunal upholds a condo board’s blanket ban on e-bikes

As electric bicycles and e-scooter devices become standard urban transit tools across Ontario, Condominium Boards face a delicate balancing act: How to manage the related lithium-ion battery fire safety risks. There is a range of alternatives to be considered by each Board.

In the case of Hinton v. Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2587, the CAT established that condominium corporations have the clear legal authority under Section 58 of the Condominium Act, 1998 to pass blanket prohibitions on e-bikes and their charging across all units, lockers, and common elements.

So, what did the Condominium rule say and what is the background?

The Rule banned e-bikes, e-scooters, electric unicycles, hoverboards, e-mopeds, segways and e-skateboards and any other electric forms of transportation (collectively referred as “E-Bikes”) and strictly prohibited keeping, storing or parking devices in residential units, parking units, storage/locker units, general common elements or exclusive use common elements. The Corporation’s Rule also banned charging anywhere on the property due to heightened fire risks.

Crucially, the Tribunal affirmed three vital governance principles:

1. Condominium Boards do not always need scientific expert evidence before passing preventive fire safety rules.
2. Safety rules are inherently preventive – Corporations are not required to wait for a fire, injury or disaster before acting.
3. Uniform blanket prohibitions can sometimes be reasonable – it is not necessary to require that management assess the safety characteristics of individual e-bikes, batteries and charging equipment. 

The CAT performed a comparative analysis between Section 58 of the Condominium Act, 1998 (which empowers boards to enact rules that promote the safety, security or welfare of owners and the property or prevent unreasonable interference with use of the units, common elements and assets) and the condominium’s Rule banning e-bikes. The Tribunal relied on the landmark Court of Appeal decision in York Condominium #382 v. Dvorchik, 1997 CanLII 1074 (ON CA) which established that “deference is owed to the Board’s determination of the appropriate means of balancing individual and communal interests.“

The Tribunal emphasized that it will not substitute its own policy preference unless a rule is clearly unreasonable or contrary to the statutory scheme, confirming that a rule does not become unreasonable simply because less restrictive alternatives may have been available to the Board.

Stay tuned to Condo Law News to keep up to date on the latest developments on condominium law !