top of page
White Columns
< Back

Essex Condominium Corporation No 25 v. Hornick - 2021 ONCAT 54 - 2021-06-22

Corporation:

ECC 25

Date:

2021-06-22

Under:

CAT Decisions - Decision
Compliance with Governing Documents
Parking and Storage

Summary:

In the case of Essex Condominium Corporation No 25 v. Hornick, the condominium corporation (ECC 25) sought to enforce its parking rules, specifically, rule 2.18 regarding visitor parking. ECC 25 claimed that the respondent was parking in the visitor parking area in violation of the rule. However, due to a lack of sufficient evidence, the Tribunal could not determine if the respondent was indeed in breach of the rule. ECC 25 had a duty to demonstrate that the respondent had violated the corporation's rules, but they failed to provide the necessary evidence. As a result, the Tribunal dismissed the application, emphasizing the need for clear evidence when enforcing condominium rules.

Verdict:

The case of Essex Condominium Corporation No 25 v. Hornick was dismissed due to insufficient evidence provided by the applicant, ECC 25, to demonstrate that the respondent had violated the condominium's visitor parking rule. This case underscores the importance of clear and substantial evidence when seeking to enforce condominium rules against specific unit owners. The onus is on the applicant to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the alleged rule violation has occurred. In this instance, ECC 25 failed to provide such evidence, leading to the dismissal of the application.

Takeaways:

The case of Essex Condominium Corporation No 25 v. Hornick revolved around a dispute regarding parking in a condominium complex governed by specific rules and regulations.

Essex Condominium Corporation No 25 (ECC 25) sought to enforce its visitor parking rule against the respondent, a unit owner who was allegedly parking in the visitor parking area.

The Tribunal found that ECC 25 had a duty to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the respondent had breached the corporation's parking rules, which they failed to do.

Despite ECC 25's claims of receiving complaints, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of clear evidence when enforcing condominium rules against a specific unit owner.

Due to the lack of evidence regarding the respondent's alleged violation of the visitor parking rule, the application was dismissed.

Recommendations: 

Gather Sufficient Evidence: When pursuing a case related to condominium rules and regulations, it is crucial to collect and present substantial evidence to support your claims. In this case, the lack of evidence resulted in the application's dismissal. Therefore, it is recommended that parties collect clear and relevant evidence to substantiate their arguments.

Active Participation: All parties involved should actively participate in the legal process. Failing to provide arguments or evidence can negatively affect one's case. It is essential to respond to communications from the tribunal and actively engage in the legal proceedings.

Legal Representation: While self-representation is an option, considering legal representation, especially in complex cases, can provide guidance, ensure all necessary procedures are followed, and increase the chances of a successful outcome. Parties should weigh the advantages of professional representation when dealing with condominium-related disputes.

bottom of page