Visitor Parking Isn’t a Second Parking Spot: CAT Reinforces Condo Rules

The Condominium Authority Tribunal (CAT) recently issued a significant decision in MTCC No. 1031 v. Lengyel, involving a long-standing parking dispute between a unit owner and Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 1031 (MTCC 1031). The case addressed two central issues: (1) improper long-term storage of a vehicle in a designated parking spot and (2) the unauthorized use of a visitor parking spot claimed as disability accommodation.

Brief Facts

MTCC 1031 shared a parking garage with two other corporations, MTCC 965 and MTCC 1056, both of which intervened in the case. The Respondent owned a unit in MTCC 1031 and was assigned a parking spot in the garage. She owned two vehicles:

• One vehicle had remained in her designated spot for over six years and was alleged by the Applicant to be inoperable.
• The second vehicle was regularly driven and had been parked in a visitor parking space owned by MTCC 965.

The Respondent asserted that her use of the visitor parking spot was necessary due to a disability.

Decision & Analysis

The Tribunal found that the Respondent’s first vehicle had been effectively stored in her parking space for over six years without being driven. Even though the Respondent disputed that the vehicle was inoperable, the evidence confirmed that the car was not used regularly. Under MTCC 1031’s Rules, parking areas are not to be used for storage purposes. The Tribunal ruled that the long-term placement of the vehicle constituted storage, not parking, and was in breach of the condominium’s rules.

The second issue focused on the Respondent’s use of a visitor parking space under the premise of a disability-related accommodation. While the Respondent provided medical notes affirming a mobility-related disability, she did not establish why she could not use her assigned parking spot (which was closer to the building entrance) or how the visitor spot specifically accommodated her disability. The Tribunal found that the Respondent had not demonstrated a valid need for specific accommodation. According to the Tribunal, the request appeared more about securing a second parking space than addressing a legitimate accessibility barrier.

Takeaways

This case provides helpful direction about the difference between “storing” an inoperable vehicle and properly parking an operable vehicle. This case also provides helpful direction about the requirement for proper proof of a need for an accommodation.

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