Late & Inconsistent Enforcement of Parking Rules May Preclude Cost Awards 

Consistent and timely enforcement of your condominium corporation’s rules doesn’t just cultivate a predictable and orderly condominium community – it might just be the difference between your condo recovering (or not recovering) costs at the Condominium Authority Tribunal (CAT).

In Senitzoglou v Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2729, the Applicant, a unit owner, had a tenant who parked their personal work van in the owner’s outdoor parking spot for four years without issue. The work van (equipped with a rooftop rack and ladder) measured at 238.5 cm in height – approximately 48 cm above the vehicle height restrictions set out in TSCC 2729’s governing documents (Declaration and Rules). Although the CAT ultimately found that the work van violated the condominium corporation’s vehicle height restrictions, it declined to award costs to the condominium corporation due to the way the vehicle height restrictions had been enforced.

At first, the condominium corporation identified that the tenant’s van violated the condominium’s rules because it was a commercial vehicle. The corporation’s property manager then cited the condominium corporation’s rule prohibiting vehicles that exceed 1.90 meters in height. Some days later, the vehicle’s length was raised as a non-compliance issue (despite there being no restriction on vehicle length in TSCC 2729’s governing documents). When the Applicant commenced their Application, the condominium corporation claimed that its decision to prohibit the tenant’s vehicle was (amongst other reasons) to “ensure the character of the community”.

Although there appears to be some basis for each of the condominium corporation’s concerns, the CAT was not impressed with the corporation’s unfocused, shotgun like approach to enforcing its rules. This, combined with the fact the Applicant’s tenant had been parking their vehicle for four years without the corporation’s vehicle height restriction being raised as an issue, caused the CAT to refuse any award of costs in favour of the condominium corporation.

This case confirms that cost awards at the CAT are discretionary under Section 1.44 (1).4 of the Condominium Act, 1998 (even when the successful party is correct on the law). The manner and consistency in which a condominium corporation enforces its rules are relevant factors in deciding whether a cost award in favour of the condominium corporation is appropriate. When in doubt on how your condominium corporation’s governing documents might apply, it may be best to seek legal advice from your trusted condo law experts.

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