Rules must be clear

In the case of Goldman, Goldman, Ruch v. Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 1316, the owners challenged a rule prohibiting them from parking both a car and a motorcycle in a single assigned parking spot.

The Tribunal determined that the parking rule was ambiguous and confusing because it referenced non-existent tandem spots and used inconsistent terminology regarding vehicles. Because ambiguity undermines reasonableness, the Tribunal held that the rule did not comply with Section 58 of the Condominium Act (which requires that rules be reasonable). The rule was therefore unenforceable.

The Tribunal found that the rule in question was unreasonable for the following reasons:

1. The critical sentence in the rule stated as follows: “All parking is limited to one vehicle per parking unit, with the exception of tandem parking units where two vehicles are permitted and with the exception of parking of motorcycles, for which the limit is up to three (3) vehicles per parking unit.”
2. The condominium corporation argued that the reference to tandem parking was not applicable, because there are no tandem parking spaces identified in the garage.  However, the owners pointed out that the parking spaces in question meet the minimum size requirements of the municipality for tandem parking spaces.  The Tribunal said:  “…the fact is that MTCC 1316’s Rules do refer to tandem parking. I find that the reference to tandem parking creates ambiguity about the interpretation of the parking rules.”
3. In terms of the exception for motorcycles, the Tribunal said:  “…the reference to ‘three vehicles’ rather than ‘three motorcycles’ creates ambiguity.  MTCC 1316 also submits that the parking spaces are not large enough to fit more than one automobile in the parking unit, unless the motor vehicles were motorcycles. However, the Applicants’ parking arrangements involve an automobile and a motorcycle, and photos put into evidence show that both parking spots are able to accommodate this.”

So in summary: The rule, as written, did not clearly prohibit the parking of a motorcycle and a car.

The Tribunal said:

As noted earlier, the board of a condominium corporation has an obligation under the Act to ensure compliance with the corporation’s rules. However, it also has a positive obligation to ensure that its rules are reasonable, as required by s. 58 (2) of the Act. If the rules are not reasonable, the solution is to amend them.

As noted in Douglas v. Simcoe Condominium Corporation No. 148, 2022 ONCAT 20, at paragraph 10:

Ambiguity undermines reasonableness. While condominium boards are entitled to some deference regarding the exercise of their discretion, such deference cannot be relied upon to allow enforcement that is based on arbitrary interpretations of ambiguous wording in their rules…

I conclude that the confusing language and ambiguity in the MTCC 1316 parking rule means that it is unreasonable and so does not comply with s. 58 (2) of the Act. It cannot therefore be enforced. I find that the rules as currently drafted cannot be used as a basis to prohibit the Applicants from parking one car and one motorcycle in their respective parking spaces.

The takeaway for condominium corporations is as follows:  Give your rules a “fresh read”.  If you see anything that isn’t clear, make amendments before a dispute arises.

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