13/01/2026– Jurisdiction Ontario
Part 93 published on 01/03/2026
Corporation’s parking rule was ambiguous and therefore not enforceable
The Applicants challenged a rule prohibiting them from parking both a car and a motorcycle in a single assigned spot.
The Tribunal determined that the parking rule was ambiguous and confusing because it referenced non-existent tandem spots and used inconsistent terminology regarding vehicles. Because ambiguity undermines reasonableness, the Tribunal held that the rule was unenforceable against the Applicants.
The Tribunal said:
As noted earlier, the board of a condominium corporation has an obligation under the Act to ensure compliance with the corporation’s rules. However, it also has a positive obligation to ensure that its rules are reasonable, as required by s. 58 (2) of the Act. If the rules are not reasonable, the solution is to amend them.
As noted in Douglas v. Simcoe Condominium Corporation No. 148, 2022 ONCAT 20, at paragraph 10:
Ambiguity undermines reasonableness. While condominium boards are entitled to some deference regarding the exercise of their discretion, such deference cannot be relied upon to allow enforcement that is based on arbitrary interpretations of ambiguous wording in their rules. …
I conclude that the confusing language and ambiguity in the MTCC 1316 parking rule means that it is unreasonable and so does not comply with s. 58 (2) of the Act. It cannot therefore be enforced.
I find that the rules as currently drafted cannot be used as a basis to prohibit the Applicants from parking one car and one motorcycle in their respective parking spaces.
Goldman, Goldman, Ruch v. Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 1316 2026 ONCAT 4