Boards Can Enforce Parking Restrictions Even After Years of Not Doing So

There’s a recent ruling by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice between Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1737, and Farrah Hakim and Jaffar Kayyali, regarding board enforcement of owner parking.

Jaffar and Farrah bought a unit – with titled parking – and proceeded to park, according to by-laws, an overheight vehicle there for 3 years before the board informed them they were in violation. The couple fought the board and demanded the right to continue to park their vehicle in their titled spot. After 3 years of dispute the court ruled that the couple’s claim was invalid and ruled in favour of the board.

It’s important to note – because this comes up ALL (all!) the time with boards I deal with – that the court ruled the board didn’t have to grandfather the vehicle because the board issued and started enforcing the overheight violation on all deliquent owners (there were 7 at that time in violation) in a fair manner.

Many owners often argue that there is a “timeliness” requirement to be caught in their bylaw infraction. That requirement doesn’t exist. A board needs not be omniscient, nor perfect, in their application of the bylaws. They do need to show fairness when enforcing them, and that the board enforces bylaw infractions as they become aware of them.  That’s about it.

So, if you’re an owner raging against a board claiming that they “ignored the situation for years” and that should invalidate any restrictions listed in the bylaws, you might not find that a convincing approach to gain favor from a judge.

Dog Poo Bad, Flipping the Bird Totally Cool

I’m a big fan of ensuring that residents can communicate with each other, even if what they want to communicate is that they hate the board. Condominium Boards tend to be very sensitive, baby-soft-skin sensitive. I’m not sure what it is, but the moment they get on the board they won’t stand for any negative comments. Part of what drives this SOS (Sudden Onset Sensitivity) comes from board members access both to money (condo fees) and a lawyer (most corporations have a lawyer on call for foreclosures, advice, and general council).

So when Steven Preu was found by a judge to be well within his First Amendment Rights to flip the bird to the board, security cameras and the condominium manager; it seems reasonable to me. Flipping the bird is an expression of aggravation and completely impolite, and while society works better when everyone is polite, I myself have flipped the bird at times (to drivers mostly, not yet in a condo related space myself).

The judge also confirmed his right to write “insulting messages” within the memo section of his checks to the corporation, and his upheld Mr. Preu’s right to post messages in the trash room, and on a neighbour’s door.

Seems pretty good so far, but Mr. Preu’s actions at free speech weren’t completely ok, and even I knew – when reading the case – when he went too far.

He additionally blocked open fire doors that are required to be closed, and closed and obstructed fire doors required to be open. That is just plain dangerous. Fire doors must always be treated with respect.

Finally, he twice decorated common areas of the condominium with bags of dog poo, labeling the condo president’s name on the bags. Placing the name of the president is a non-issue to me (but likely does a fine job piercing the president’s skin), it’s the act of littering that become enforceable.

I’m just glad that the bags of poo weren’t flaming bags of dog poo – a fatal mixture with fire doors that were interfered with.