Skip to content

Narrow screen resolution Wide screen resolution Auto adjust screen size Increase font size Decrease font size Default font size default color brick color green color
CAFCOR Forum
_GEN_GOTOBOTTOM Post Reply
TOPIC:
#19253
Tribunal "DOORS" motorcycles 2021/07/15 18:15  
Not legal advice.

( Anyone who buys into any sorta shared ownership community, is making a conscious choice to potentially enter a Twilight Zone. . .‘Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch'intrate" - Dante )

A pair of 2021 ONCAT Ontario Condominium Authority Tribunal decisions, show how handy ONCAT’s expanded Oct 1/20 jurisdiction is seen for punishing where motorcyclists park within their condo community.

There are complaints about operating noise, speeding, extra FOBs, protruding cars, fear of “adjacency damage” if parked tandem within an owner’s parking space, off-season insurance issues, complications of garage sweepings, aesthetics . . . etc. Similar heard about overheight vehicles/travel trailers/grocery buggies/ orphaned tires etc. Valid or not other owners with time on their hands raise them. . . .

BUT NOW ONCAT has the jurisdiction to award the "door prize".

Mui v O-C S.C.C. # 963 ( 2021 ) ONCAT 63 https://canlii.ca/t/jgzm5

Despite a Declaration literally worded to allow both cars & motorcycles to be parked in spaces, adjudicator upholds March 2021 Rule outlawing concurrent parking within the same space.

S.R.L. applicant owner owns both car & motorcycle parked concurrently in his own space since 2015. He says THEY DO NOT PROTRUDE. But he had been told Fire Code issues ( undetailed ) & aesthetics back new Rule triggered ( against parking both concurrently ) and enacted coincidentally AFTER he applied to ONCAT.

Member defers to the "one vehicle per space" Rule as "not clearly unreasonable or contrary to the legislative scheme" as criteria'd by Ontario's Court of Appeal in Dvorchik 1997 ( Y.C.C. # 382 v. Dvorchik ( 1997 )ONCA 1074 https://canlii.ca/t/6hr3 )

Xcrpt : “[10] The amendment to the parking rule was proposed in the January 7, 2021 notice to the owners. . . The notice stated :

The purpose of the proposed rule is to clarify the existing rule to prevent an unsafe parking situation where vehicles protrude into the garage as well as protect the aesthetics of the condominium.

. . .[17] The Applicant argues that the stated purpose of the amended rule was misleading. He notes that he has a small car and that his car and motorcycle do not protrude beyond the designated parking spot when both are parked in his spot.

He notes that some owners have large vehicles that do protrude even if only one vehicle is parked. In addition, he asserts that some owners are in violation of rule 23.3 as things other than vehicles are stored in some spots, including electric bikes.

I understand the Applicant’s frustration.

However, since the amendment was properly made it can be enforced. The wording of the rule as amended makes clear that it is not permitted to park a vehicle and a motorcycle in one spot, even if they fit in the spot.

It is the wording of the rule that is the determining factor and not the stated purpose of the amendment in the notice. The fact that there may be violations of other rules does not mean that the board cannot enforce the parking rule. .. .

. . . . [21] Section 58(2) of the Act provides that rules “shall be reasonable”. The Ontario Court of Appeal has explained the threshold for finding a rule to be unreasonable is high:

...a court should not substitute its own opinion about the propriety of a rule enacted by a condominium board unless the rule is clearly unreasonable or contrary to the legislative scheme. In the absence of such unreasonableness, deference should be paid to rules deemed appropriate by a board charged with responsibility for balancing the private and communal interests of the unit owners. (Y.C.C. # 382 v. Dvorchik 1997 (ON CA) 1074 https://canlii.ca/t/6hr3 )

[22] The Court went on to explain that a rule does not have to be the best or the least arbitrary rule in order to be reasonable.

[23] In this case, it may well be that a better solution could have been found that would meet the needs of the corporation and the owners. It may also be that the amended rule does not address the stated concerns leading to its adoption, or that it is arbitrary.

However, these factors do not make the rule unreasonable.
. .” - unquote

T.S.C.C. # 2055 v Robert 2021 ONCAT 38 https://canlii.ca/t/jfs8g

- issues injunction to permanently cease ( within 21 days ) defendant's parking – unauthorized by management - since 2015 on U/G common element adjacent to the parking space used as tenant of a unit. No defence : condo corp can point to NO safety issue. ( “because we want it stopped” )
  The administrator has disabled public write access.
#19254
a different motorcyclist's Application is rejected as beyond ONCAT jurisdiction 2021/07/22 21:22  
not legal advice nor the same disputants above :

Issued by the Tribunal Chair, ONCAT rejects a different motorcyclist’s Tribunal Application to block his condo corp’s ordering him to remove attachments ( from imbedded into concrete ) which he uses to chain his machine within his space.

( cited as arguably a section 98 Act enforcement scenario & not derived from site-specific documents otherwise triggering potential ONCAT scope )

- Sanchez v. T.S.C.C # 1531 ( 2021) ONCAT 68 https://canlii.ca/t/jh1qm
  The administrator has disabled public write access.
_GEN_GOTOTOP Post Reply
contact webmaster