Legal

July 1, 2026 Published by British Columbia Chapter - By James Davidson

Condo Cases Across Canada

From CCI BC Strata Connection Magazine, Spring/Summer 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

No unreasonable noise. Condominium Corporation also had reasonable protocol in place to investigate noise complaints.

The owner alleged that unreasonable noise was emanating from the unit below. He alleged that the condominium corporation had failed to fulfill its obligation to investigate and remedy the noise issue.

The Tribunal held that the condominium corporation took appropriate steps to investigate the complaints, including protocol-based inspections and hiring a professional sound engineer, whose report indicated that noise levels were within acceptable limits.

The Tribunal said:

While there was, at one point in time, unreasonable noise that rose to the level of a nuisance, I find that TSCC 2302 responded and took appropriate steps to investigate his complaints and ensure that the resident from the lower unit took measures to reduce the transmission of the music and eliminate the noise. According to the June 19 report, these measures have been objectively successful. I find that TSCC 2302 took reasonable steps to enforce their rules and the Act.

The application was dismissed, and the Applicant was ordered to pay $5,000 in legal costs to the corporation.

British Columbia

Courts determines responsibility of strata owners to share in certain repair costs.

There was a dispute between the strata owners about responsibility for costs to repair the building envelope and other features of a mixed-use building on the strata property. The owners of “stand-alone” commercial lots argued that they shouldn’t pay for repairs to a building they didn’t occupy or use.

The court disagreed, ruling that the building envelope in question protects shared assets like the electrical transformer serving the entire property and is therefore a common expense. The Court said that the following general principle applied to other features of the property:

The bylaws of a section and the strata corporation may clarify which expenses relate solely to a section; however, the underlying principle is that for a section to be responsible for an expense, that expense must relate solely to that section.

The Court made the following declarations:

1. The Strata Corporation (The Owners, Strata Plan NW 3365) is responsible to repair and maintain the building envelope and other related common property components of the building with civic address 918 Roderick Avenue, Coquitlam, British Columbia.
2. The owners of the Strata Corporation must contribute to the cost relating to the repair and maintenance of common property and common assets of the Strata Corporation based on unit entitlement. The Residential Section of the Owners, Strata Plan NW 3365 v The Commercial Section of the Owners, Strata Plan NW 3365, 2026 BCS

---

James Davidson, LL.B., ACCI, FCCI, Partner, Davidson Houle Allen LLP
One of the founding partners of Davidson Houle Allen LLP., Jim has been practicing condominium law for over 40 years. He represents condominium corporations, their directors, owners, and insurers throughout Eastern Ontario. His experience also includes building deficiencies, shared property interests, co-ownership and construction law. Jim is proud to be an associate (ACCI) and also a fellow (FCCI) of the Canadian Condominium Institute.”