top of page
White Columns
< Back

Rahman v. Peel Standard Condominium Corporation No. 779 - 2021 ONCAT 13 - 2021-02-16

Corporation:

RPSCC 779

Date:

2021-02-16

Under:

CAT Decisions - Decision
Compliance with Governing Documents
Indemnification or Compensation
Parking and Storage

Summary:

The case Rahman v Peel Standard Condominium Corporation No. 779 involved a dispute between a condominium unit owner and the corporation regarding the use of parking spaces designated for the disabled. The owner has a disability that impeded their ability to access their unit from their designated parking spaces, so they believed they were entitled to park in an accessible parking space, as per the corporation's declaration. The corporation claimed that the owner was in violation of their declaration by parking in a visitors-only area or using an accessible parking space without sufficient evidence of disability. The Condominium Authority Tribunal ruled that the owner was entitled to use the accessible parking spaces as they met the corporation's requirements, and the corporation's enforcement actions constituted harassment. No compensation or enforcement costs were awarded to the corporation.

Verdict:

The case Rahman v Peel Standard Condominium Corporation No. 779 concerned a dispute between a condo unit owner and the corporation regarding the use of accessible parking spaces due to the owner's disability. The Condominium Authority Tribunal ruled in the owner's favor, stating that they were entitled to park in the accessible spaces since the corporation's declaration permitted it. The tribunal also found that the corporation's enforcement actions constituted harassment and awarded the owner $200 in costs and $1,500 under subsection 144(1)(3) of the Condominium Act 1998.

The lesson from this case is that condo corporations must ensure that their declarations and rules are in compliance with applicable laws and take into account the needs of individuals with disabilities. It is also important for corporations to avoid enforcing their rules in a manner that could be interpreted as harassment and to maintain evidence to support any enforcement actions they take.

Takeaways:

Jurisdiction: The case addressed the jurisdiction of the Condominium Authority Tribunal to hear disputes regarding provisions of a condominium corporation's declaration, by-laws, or rules that govern parking, including parking on common elements.

Disability accommodation: The case involved a dispute related to the use of accessible parking spaces by a condo unit owner with a disability. The Condominium Authority Tribunal ultimately ruled that the owner was entitled to use the accessible parking spaces as they met the corporation's requirements.

Harassment: The case involved mutual claims of harassment, with the respondent corporation asserting that the owner was in violation of the corporation's rules. However, the Tribunal found that the corporation's enforcement actions constituted harassment, and awarded the owner $200 in costs and $1,500 under subsection 144(1)(3) of the Condominium Act 1998. No compensation or enforcement costs were awarded to the corporation.

Recommendations: 

Clarify the Declaration: It is recommended that Peel Standard Condominium Corporation No. 779 reviews and clarifies the language in their Declaration regarding parking areas, specifically addressing accessible parking spaces and their usage. Clear guidelines can help avoid confusion and potential disputes in the future.

Compliance with Disability Accommodation: The condominium corporation should ensure that they are in compliance with the requirements of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA). This includes providing accessible parking spaces for individuals with disabilities and accommodating their needs as per the declaration.

Training on Enforcement Policies: It would benefit Peel Standard Condominium Corporation No. 779 to provide training for their staff and management on enforcement policies and guidelines. Understanding how to handle violations and disputes in a fair and non-harassing manner can help prevent escalation and potential legal actions.

bottom of page