05/21/2024 – Jurisdiction Ontario
Part 86 published on 01/06/2024
Owner responsible for chargebacks related to parking rule violations.
The Applicant owner challenged chargebacks that had been levied against her by the condominium corporation in relation to alleged violations of the parking Rules.
The Tribunal was satisfied that there were clear violations of the parking Rules. The Tribunal said:
The truck (owned by a guest of the owner) was parked in a manner that obstructed other vehicles in the underground parking garage. There is evidence that the truck exceeded the length permitted by the parking rules. It was often parked in a way that made access by other owners to and from their parking spots, difficult. The truck was sometimes parked in spots not associated with Ms. MacLellan’s unit. There are allegations that the parking spaces contained debris, cigarette butts and garbage; that the truck was leaking oil; and that kitty litter was used to soak up oil stains which clogged the drains in the garage floor.
The Tribunal held that the resulting chargebacks were properly charged to the owner (with certain reductions) pursuant to an indemnification provision in the condominium corporation’s Declaration and pursuant to s. 1.44(1)3 of the Condominium Act. The Tribunal said:
I find that there is a causal connection between the failure to comply with the parking rules, the entry of (the owner’s guest’s) truck into the parking garage on May 27, 2023, and the resulting damage to the garage door. I order Ms. MacLellan to pay compensation for damages incurred by the condominium corporation for the repair to the garage door in the amount $3,041.74. I find that there are grounds to compensate the condominium corporation for legal costs reasonably incurred to enforce its parking rules, in the amount of $1,180.75, and administrative service fees in the amount of $400.
In relation to the administrative service fees, the Tribunal said:
In total, eight demand letters were sent to the Applicant. Each included a $50 administration fee, added in the covering letter. Ms. Gouveia testified that $50 is a fee that the board is aware of, and that owners are charged for additional services which fall outside the standard management contract. I have little doubt that there was extra time spent by management in the administration of the parking rules in this case. I find that Ms. MacLellan is responsible for paying the $400 in administrative fees.
In terms of the costs of the CAT process, the Tribunal said:
The Applicant referred to the Divisional Court decision in Peel Standard Condominium Corporation No. 779 v Rahman where the Divisional Court upheld this Tribunal’s interpretation of Amlani v York Condominium Corporation No. 473. I accept the Applicant’s argument that the Divisional Court has held that attempts to obtain full indemnity for legal costs or other charges absent a court or tribunal order is unreasonable. However, in this case, the condominium corporation did not go so far as to issue a lien for any of the charges and the cases cited are distinguishable from the present case.
Ms. MacLellan knowingly allowed the continued breach of the parking rules, which resulted in inconvenience to other owners and property damage. As the Applicant, she was only successful in slightly reducing the legal costs directly charged to her. It may have been more appropriate for the condominium corporation to initiate a case at the Tribunal and to include all the compliance related expenses in a claim, rather than demanding payment directly. I find no circumstances in this proceeding that would support a cost order in favour of either party.
MacLellan v. Waterloo South Condominium Corporation No. 22, 2024 ONCAT 67