Condominium Corporation Entitled to Deference in Chosen Method to Enforce Parking Rules
Subsection 17(3) of the Condominium Act (the “Act”) establishes the general obligation for a condominium corporation to take all reasonable steps to ensure compliance with its governing documents. But must every violation of, for example, a corporation’s parking rules, be answered with an enforcement procedure?
In Dhuruvasangary v. Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1532, the Condominium Authority Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) applied the “business judgment rule” to find that the Board of Directors had discretion when it comes to the manner it chose to enforce its parking rules (granted it acted reasonably and not capriciously in doing so).
In this case, the Applicant was not satisfied with TSCC 1532’s chosen methods to enforce its parking rules. The Applicant provided evidence to the Tribunal of at least 18 parking violations over two years. The Applicant argued that TSCC 1532 failed to enforce its parking rules as required by section 17(3) of the Act by allowing owners and their visitors to park on the roadway.
In reaching its conclusion that the Board’s chosen enforcement practices were reasonable, the Tribunal considered the following factual background for insights into the Board’s decision-making process:
Street parking at TSCC 1532 (a townhouse style condominium corporation) was a longstanding topic of debate in the community. In previous years, the Corporation had engaged a private parking enforcement company to help enforce parking rules. After a couple years of this practice, the Board found that the cost of paying for private parking enforcement was disproportionate to the nature of the violations (which were often, in the Board’s opinion, minor and of limited duration). Moreover, there was evidence that the majority of the community did not support the continued use of a private parking enforcement company.
In light of these factors, the Board decided not to renew its parking enforcement contract and, instead, proceeded to issue general notices to owners respecting the Corporation’s parking rules and to remind individual owners of the rules when it became aware of violations. The Applicant argued that this was tantamount to the Corporation not enforcing its parking rules.
While stressing that TSCC 1532 must enforce its parking rules, the Tribunal disagreed with the Applicant and found that the Board’s decision to issue notices to owners, while a “softer” approach compared to using a parking enforcement company, represented an effort to enforce its parking rules in a manner that was consistent with the community’s needs and circumstances. In other words, the Board’s decision fell within a “range of reasonable options”. In concluding that the Corporation’s decision-making process was reasonable, and not capricious, the Tribunal held the Board’s chosen enforcement method was owed deference.
Stay tuned to Condo Law News to keep up to date on the latest developments on condominium law!
