Kong v. Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1959 - 2021 ONCAT 96 - 2021-10-18
Corporation:
KTSCC 1959
Date:
2021-10-18
Summary:
The case of Kong v. Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1959 revolves around the applicant, a unit owner in TSCC1959, who used to charge her electric vehicle in the shared visitor parking area managed by a Shared Facility Committee (SFC). The SFC later determined that the Declarations prohibited residents from using the visitor parking for charging stations. The applicant brought an application seeking access to the charging stations or an upgrade to an L2 EVCS. She cited sections of the Regulation, the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA), and the Human Rights Code for support. However, the tribunal dismissed her application, stating that the Regulation did not repeal the restriction, the AODA did not apply, and she had not demonstrated discrimination or the need for accommodation due to disability.
Under:
CAT Decisions - Decision
Parking and Storage
Vehicles
Verdict:
the quick verdict is that the applicant's application to return to using the charging stations in the visitor parking area and upgrade them to an L2 EVCS has been dismissed. The tribunal ruled that the regulations cited by the applicant do not repeal the restrictions on the visitor parking area and that the AODA does not apply in this case. Additionally, the tribunal found that the applicant has not demonstrated that she is being discriminated against due to a disability and that reasonable accommodation has been offered and rejected.
Takeaways:
A unit owner brought an application seeking access to charging stations in shared visitor parking managed by a Shared Facility Committee (SFC) of Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1959.
The SFC had determined that the Declarations prohibited residents from using the visitor parking for charging stations.
The applicant cited the Regulation, AODA, and the Human Rights Code to support her request, but the tribunal dismissed her application as none of the provisions mentioned allowed her right to access the shared visitor parking or install an electric vehicle charging station as an accommodation for her disability.
The decision suggests that the respective Declarations of the two condominium corporations were not governed by sections 24.1 and 24.3 of the Regulation and that they should follow the limitations and restrictions within the Declarations for parking and storage purposes.
Overall, the tribunal emphasized that the applicant's requested accommodation was solely based on her choice of an electric vehicle and not her disability, and that reasonable accommodation had already been offered to her.
Recommendations:
Communication and Transparency: The condominium corporation should improve communication and transparency with unit owners regarding any changes or restrictions related to shared facilities such as visitor parking and charging stations for electric vehicles. This can help avoid misunderstandings and address any concerns or accommodations needed by residents with disabilities.
Accessibility Considerations: The condominium corporation should review and assess the accessibility needs of all residents, especially those with disabilities. This includes evaluating the availability and functionality of charging stations for electric vehicles, and considering reasonable accommodations or upgrades to meet the needs of residents who rely on electric vehicles for mobility.
Conflict Resolution: In situations where there are disputes or disagreements between residents and the condominium corporation, mechanisms for conflict resolution should be put in place. This can involve mediation or alternative dispute resolution methods to find mutually acceptable solutions and avoid prolonged legal proceedings that can be costly for all parties involved.