Condominium Visitor Parking Violations

In Marazzato v. Wentworth Common Elements Condominium Corporation No. 519 2025 ONCAT 173
2025-11-27

WCECC 519 is a common elements condominium and owners hold parcels of tied land (“POTLs”). Belinda Marazzato (“the Applicant”) owns one such POTL. Over several years, she received multiple notices, compliance letters, and chargeback letters relating to alleged parking violations—specifically, use of the condominium’s visitor parking and parking.

The governing documents initially contained only a declaration provision (Article 3.4) stating that visitor parking could be used solely by “visitors and guests” of residents. In June 2022, the Board amended the Rules to add Rule 12, which imposed new visitor-parking restrictions, including a maximum number of overnight stays, a prohibition on residents using visitor parking, and requirements for Board approval for extended stays. The Board later issued various “policies” in 2022–2024 that purported to adjust the number of warning letters before legal enforcement and supplement the visitor-parking restrictions.

Between 2018 and 2024, the Applicant received numerous notices and chargebacks for alleged visitor-parking violations, totaling $1,880.99. She commenced this CAT application challenging:

(1) the validity of WCECC 519’s visitor-parking rules and policies;
(2) the reasonableness of enforcement;
(3) the validity of the chargebacks; and
(4) allegations of harassment by Board members.

WCECC 519 maintained that all charges were lawful and that its directors did not engage in harassment.

During the hearing, the Tribunal released Zolis v. Wentworth C.E.C.C. 519, a decision involving nearly identical issues, and the parties were invited to make submissions on its relevance.

The Tribunal rejected the Applicant’s arguments that the visitor-parking provisions were confusing or invalid. It found that Article 3.4 of the Declaration and Rule 12 were enacted in accordance with the Act and were generally clear and enforceable. This is important to note: consistency and clarity in drafting.  Boards should be periodically reviewing the constating documents to ensure consistency, clarity and intention.

The Tribunal identified one ambiguity in Rule 12—its reference to “3 overnight (9 p.m. to 7 a.m.) stays per 7-day period”—noting that this wording could be interpreted either as three overnight stays or as authorizing a total of 72 hours of parking per week. Despite this ambiguity, the overall rule remained valid.

However, the Tribunal held that WCECC 519’s various visitor-parking “policies” adopted after Rule 12 were not valid to the extent that they purported to modify Rule 12. The Tribunal confirmed that a condominium corporation cannot amend its Rules by policy; any amendment must follow s. 58 of the Act, including proper notice to owners and the opportunity to requisition a meeting.

The Tribunal determined that Article 3.4 of the Declaration and Rule 12 are valid and enforceable. Visitor-parking policies issued after the rule amendment are not enforceable to the extent that they attempt to amend or alter Rule 12 without following the statutory amendment process. The Board retains broad discretion in choosing enforcement actions, but that discretion is limited by the requirement that enforcement be reasonable and based on valid governing documents. See our article on Balancing the Business Judgment Rule with Oppression Remedy for a Condominium Corporation.

Patricia Elia
Elia Associates