Taite v. Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 91 (Ontario Human Rights Tribunal)

The Applicant has a disability that limits his neck movement, causes him pain and affects his mobility, particularly in cold weather.  He alleged that, as a result, he needs to drive a fairly large pick-up truck, which does not fit into the underground parking garage of the condominium (in which he resides).  He stated that he needed this large vehicle because it allows for good visibility, accommodates additional mirrors that he has attached to enhance his visibility without requiring him to turn his neck, and because the vehicle is very safe and would provide enhanced protection in the event of an accident.  The Applicant claimed that he therefore needed the condominium corporation to allow him to park in an outdoor parking space.  The Tribunal held that the condominium corporation had no duty to accommodate the Applicant, and dismissed the claim.  The Tribunal said:

I find that the applicant’s ability to park near the entrance of the condominium was limited not because of his disability but because he chose to drive a model of vehicle that does not fit in the underground lot.  Again, the applicant has failed to adduce any medical evidence that his choice of vehicle is anything other than a personal preference.