CAT orders the removal of 2 abandoned vehicles
This is a case where an owner abandoned two derelict vehicles in her common element driveway. After 2 years, the corporation brought the matter to the CAT to have them removed. Interestingly enough, this case does not appear to have been a case about parking…
Facts of the case
This case appears to take place in a town home condo complex in Scarborough. The owner involved stored two abandoned vehicles in her common element driveway (which, we suspect from a google street view search, is the driveway in front of her unit). These vehicles were clearly not roadworthy and had been abandoned for years:
- They had no license plates
- One had a flat tire, the other had one axle raised on blocks;
- One had a broken window;
- They were both covered with dust and dirt;
- One had been leaking from its underside for months;
- They had not been moved (or had their engine turned on) in 2 years.
The owner had been repeatedly asked to move the vehicles. She had repeatedly promised she would – but had failed to do so.
The corporation brought this to the CAT.
The rules in this case
Three rules are quoted in this case:
- one prohibits leaving debris, refuse or garbage on common elements (including exclusive use);
- one prohibits obstructing sidewalks, entries, passageways, walkways and driveways or using them for any purpose other than ingress and egress from the unit;
- One prohibits parking of trailers, boats, snowmobile, toboggan, machinery or equipment on common elements other than in parking spaces.
We assume this to mean that this corporation did not have a better and more relevant rule prohibiting the abandonment of cars on parking spots.
The bulk of the case was decided on the first rule: the one prohibiting debris/garbage on common elements.
The CAT’s jurisdiction
The Condo Authority Tribunal has jurisdiction over disputes concerning:
Provisions that prohibit, restrict or otherwise govern the parking or storage of items in a unit, asset or common elements that are intended for parking or storage purposes.
An interesting question for the CAT was to determine whether the rule prohibiting the placing of garbage/debris in a parking space brought this dispute under its jurisdiction. Indeed, this case did not appear to raise a breach of a parking rule, nor did it (in our view) squarely raise an issue pertaining to storage…
The CAT concluded that the language of the rule which prohibited the “placement” of debris on common elements was broad enough to include dispute pertaining to “storage” – ie, this person was storing (abandoned) vehicles on her parking spot.
The next question was whether abandoned cars constituted “refuse”. The CAT concluded that these vehicles did fall within the definition of “debris” or “garbage”. Indeed, these vehicles had not been moved or ran over two years and they could not be moved in their current condition. The fact that they did not even have a license plate suggested that the owner had no current intention to restore them to a functioning state – even if that was possible.
Decision
The CAT ordered the owner to remove these vehicles within 30 days. She was also ordered to pay the corporation $1,600 in damages and $200 for the filing fees at the Tribunal.
Considering that the owner did not appear to dispute any of the evidence, it is difficult to understand how this matter was not resolved at the mediation stage.
Lesson learned
We suspect it is time for this corporation to review its parking rules to better address situations such as this one. A clearer set of rules, perhaps with ticketing/towing provision, may have allowed them to deal with this situation in a more efficient manner. A good parking rule should expressly and clearly identify what can and what cannot be parked/stored on a parking space. Unroadworthy or unplated vehicles should clearly be prohibited.
It may be time to have your favourite condo lawyer review your rules on this.
You can read the entire case here.