We in our condo have an issue I wrote about before, but now we have another twist to it.
To recap the original issue: our problem owner, who just stirs up trouble in every possible way, decided to abandon her parking spot she had for over 6 years, and took somebody else's spot. She parked her car there, and was not going to move. Rode her bike instead and got rides from others. But at Thanks Giving. looks like she finally needed her car, and pulled out of there. The legitimate owner reclaimed that spot, and now a car is parked there, not being used.
The trouble maker returned, and when found that spot taken, parked into another one, but not hers.
The attraction to the spots she seems to occupy is that those are corner spots, leading to the open driving areas of the garage, so easier to back out from them than from the others.
In our condo the parking spots are exclusive use of common elements, therefore the BOD is responsible for keeping to the rules.

The police said, they won't do anything, since it is private property, but advised, that we could get her car towed. According to the police the towing companies are aware of the rules and won't do anything illegal.

The PM and our Corporate lawyer got into the picture. The PM called the lawyer (without asking the BOD if she should)
The lawyer said we can't tow the car without a court order, or else we'll be charged with theft.
I can't believe this. If somebody occupies my spot I have to live with it until I can get a court order? I have no right to clear my own spot from intruders?
To me it looks like getting business for the lawyer. Am I wrong?

Faced with these refusals, the s98 benefit holder and/or the condo corp could also consider triggering M&A the mediation and arbitration route ( see the Ontario Condo Act's s9, your M&A by-law and Italiano and Peng at canlii plus others ). The M&A routes could platform a future court order rather than what the towing authorities forsee what might happen in this particular case with this particular car-parker. I wonder how good the documentation has been. . .

The documentation is very clear. Each spot has a huge tag on the wall showing which unit it is allocated to.

If someone is in your spot you tow... it's the simple answer. We got thread and threads and threads, agreeing to that fundamental detail.

How many times does this get spun, before the light goes on?

This is the same parking spots we all agree the board has no place in policing, or spending owners money on. It is not subject to arbitration or mediation, since the dispute is not with the board or a rule. It's one board president vs. another pwner.

No Richard it is not the President vs. another owner.First of all in our Condo the parking spots are exclusive use of common elements, and guarding them is the responsibility of the board.
Second: our President does not drive and does not own a car.
The original dispute involved the president's sister's estate, the sister is dead, and her estate does not belong, nor is it handled by our President.
Thirdly: The owner, party to the dispute, now occupied yet another parking lot that took her fancy.
You say: tow it! It is simple. And I would agree.
Our problem is the lawyer ,saying that we can't do it, and I would like to find out for certain if our lawyer is right or wrong.

You can't -- it's none of the board's business! The lawyer is right! It' pretty simple.

The authorized owner/user is the only one that can tow! You know the law, so why is the board playing and spending money on other people problems??

The board is not a guardian of other people parking spots, at any time.

I am more confused as ever before. 2 postings above Richard wrote; "tow it, it is that simple."
In the posting above this one Richard wrote: "no you can't tow it, the lawyer is right."
Which one?
Perhaps I did not myself clear: It does not matter who can tow it. If the parking spot's owner can, will and would love to.
If it is up to the corporation, being a common element, the corporation will do it.
No problem this way. None whatsoever.
The problem is the lawyer's statement. Accordingly neither the owner of the parking spot, nor the corporation has the right to tow the intruder's car, and I find it difficult to believe, but need to be sure.

The owner of the spot is the only one that can tow an intruder or tresspasser from an owned or assigned spot.

If we were talking about your own spot, that is what you have the right to do. You would not call a board meeting.
Both these spots are assigned to others.

If they are wrong in their actions, they are the one that would be sued too. It is really simple!

The corporation with limited exception, have no towing rights.

Why is the corporation lawyer involved, in parking issue, that are not in the boards jurisdiction?

That is my whole question Richard. You finally got it. Why is th e lawyer involved? The BOD didn't ask the lawyer, the PM did, without discussing whether or not the lawyer should get involved. The towing company advised that the PM had to sign the order, because the spot is common element in a condo. The PM refuses, because the lawyer advised otherwise. Per lawyer we need to go to court. Back to my question: do we really, or is it just money grab?
I do not know, but does not seem right to me.

Court for what purpose?? That is my question.

The only person that can tow, is the authorized user or deeded owner. This is an exclusive use common element, assigned by a piece of paper. The manager cannot authorize towing in that case. If someone parks in a fire route, the manager would sign.

It is a waste of money, without question. If boards are going to throw cash away, somebody has to be there to grab it!

Thanks.