York Region Condominium Corporation No. 720 v. New Venture Properties Inc.
2024 ONCAT 127 · August 14, 2024 · Partially upheld
ONCAT performed a strict textual analysis of a parking rule whose 'such motor vehicle' phrasing the corporation tried to read broadly to capture motorcycles; the tribunal applied a sentence-construction reading that the prohibition on repair/storage applies only to vehicle classes already permitted to be parked there. The decision also confirms tribunal jurisdiction stops at s.117(1) damage claims (asphalt divots from kickstands), forcing corporations to plead correctly under s.117(2) prescribed-nuisance grounds. Mediation costs were ordered where the respondent signed the mediation agreement and then failed to participate.
Why this matters for Alberta owners
TL;DR: When a condo's fine notice cites a specific rule, the tribunal will read that rule's text strictly — it will NOT stretch the words to cover conduct the rule doesn't actually describe. In Cycleworx the corporation tried to enforce three different rules against a motorcycle-repair tenant; the tribunal dismissed the Rule 13 claim entirely (the rule covered sidewalks and driveways, not parking spaces) and read Rule 14's 'such motor vehicle' phrasing narrowly enough that some of the worst conduct fell outside it. The Alberta lesson: every word in the cited rule matters. If the rule names a specific space, a specific activity, or a specific class of person, the corporation is bound by exactly those words — and the tribunal will hold them to it.
The facts. York Region Condominium Corporation No. 720 is an industrial / commercial condo. One of its units is owned by New Venture Properties and leased to Cycleworx Custom Motorcycles, which uses the space for motorcycle service, restoration, customization, and storage. Cycleworx ran much of that operation onto the common elements: motorcycles parked outside the unit, vehicles awaiting repair stored in common-element parking, pylons blocking off parking stalls. The corporation issued compliance letters and ultimately filed an ONCAT application alleging Cycleworx had violated four separate rules — Rule 5 (garbage and debris on common elements), Rule 13 (obstructing sidewalks/entries/driveways), Rule 14 (motor vehicle restrictions), and Rule 18 (storage of equipment / parts / waste matter on common elements).
What the tribunal held on Rule 13. Member Sanford's analysis is direct. Rule 13 prohibits obstruction of "sidewalks, entries, passageways, walkways and driveways" — it does not mention parking spaces. The corporation argued that placing pylons in parking stalls violated Rule 13. The Member rejected the argument at paragraph 15: parking spaces are not mentioned in Rule 13, the rule is specific and detailed about which common-element spaces it covers, and the corporation cannot stretch a rule about driveways into a rule about parking. Rule 13 dismissed.
What the tribunal held on Rule 14. This is the cleanest demonstration of the strict-text-reading principle. Rule 14 has four parts. First, it restricts which classes of motor vehicles may be parked on the common elements (passenger cars, station wagons, commercial vehicles — motorcycles are NOT on that list). Second and third, it prohibits the repair and storage of "such motor vehicle" on the common elements. The corporation asked the tribunal to read "such motor vehicle" broadly enough to cover motorcycles as well as the listed classes. Member Sanford refused, at paragraph 21, with a sentence-construction analysis. Her reasoning: the phrase "such motor vehicle" can only refer to vehicles either permitted to be parked OR prohibited from being parked — and as a matter of common sense, the prohibition on repair/storage must mean the vehicles otherwise permitted to be there. The closing line is the kicker: "There would be no point in prohibiting repairs to motor vehicles which are not supposed to be there in the first place."
The odd consequence the tribunal accepted. Strict reading of Rule 14 produced a result the tribunal acknowledged was awkward. Motorcycles fall outside the permitted-vehicle list, but the corporation expressly declined to ask for a finding that motorcycles couldn't be parked there at all — so the phrase 'such motor vehicle' covers only the permitted classes (cars, wagons, commercial). The corporation got a win on motor-vehicle repair (cars on common elements) but NOT on motorcycle repair (because motorcycles weren't covered by 'such motor vehicle'). The Member noted the oddity but applied the strict reading anyway. Rule wording controls.
The jurisdictional carve-out. The corporation also wanted findings about kickstand divots damaging the asphalt. Member Sanford at paragraph 25 ruled this was outside ONCAT jurisdiction: damage to the common elements falls under s.117(1) of the Ontario Act, which is expressly excluded from the tribunal's scope (ONCAT handles s.117(2) prescribed-nuisance disputes, not s.117(1) damage-to-property disputes). The corporation could achieve the same result by stopping motorcycle parking under Rule 14 — but that wasn't the relief the corporation actually asked for, so the tribunal didn't grant it.
Why this matters in Alberta. The CDRT applies the substantial-compliance + prejudice framework to fine challenges under section 35 of the Condominium Property Act. CPR s.73.7(e) requires every Proposed Sanction notice to identify the specific bylaw provision allegedly contravened. The Cycleworx principle ports directly: when a notice cites a specific bylaw, the CDRT will read that bylaw's text strictly. If the cited bylaw uses qualifying language (specific spaces, specific activities, specific classes of vehicle/person/conduct), and your actual conduct doesn't match those qualifiers, the notice has a substantive defect — it cites a rule that doesn't cover what you did. That's not the same as 'the conduct didn't happen' (it might have). It's a different defect: 'the conduct happened but the cited rule doesn't reach it.'
The bottom line: the rule cited in the fine notice has to actually cover your conduct. Cycleworx is direct Ontario authority that tribunals will read rule text strictly and refuse to expand a rule beyond what its words can support. If your fine notice cites a bylaw whose text doesn't reach what you actually did, run FineCheck to flag the bylaw-scope defect and raise it as a substantive ground for voiding or reducing the fine.
What the tribunal said
Selected excerpts from the Ontario CAT's reasoning. Full decision on CanLII.
[21] The difficulty with YRCC 720's requested relief lies in its interpretation of rule 14. Rule 14 does restrict the kind of motor vehicles that may be parked on any part of the common elements. Rule 14 goes on to prohibit the repair of 'such motor vehicle' and the storage of 'such motor vehicle' while awaiting repair. The use of the phrase 'such motor vehicle' must be read as referring to one or the other subset of motor vehicles; either those motor vehicles that are permitted to be parked or those that are prohibited from being parked. As a matter of both sentence construction and common sense, the motor vehicles that may not be repaired or stored for repair on the common elements are those motor vehicles which are otherwise permitted to be on the common elements. There would be no point in prohibiting repairs to motor vehicles which are not supposed to be there in the first place. [25] The damage caused to the common elements by the divots left by the kickstands is outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal as it constitutes damage to the common elements and is addressed under section 117(1) of Condominium Act, 1998 (the 'Act'), which is currently expressly excluded from the Tribunal's jurisdiction. [32] As YRCC 720 notes, New Venture is responsible under subsection 119(2) of the Act for taking 'all reasonable steps to ensure that an occupier of the owner's unit ... comply with this Act, the declaration, the by-laws and the rules.' New Venture was notified of this obligation in the April 25, 2022, letter from YRCC 720's lawyers. New Venture is responsible for the rule violations by Cycleworx.
Connects to FineCheck's framework
Jurisdictional note: Ontario CATdecisions are not binding on Alberta's CDRT, but the CDRT will look to other Canadian condo tribunals for guidance under analogous statutory provisions until its own case law develops. The substantial-compliance + prejudice framework used in this decision parallels the test in CDRT Policies and Procedures s.7(b).
Decision date: August 14, 2024 · Citation: 2024 ONCAT 127 · Outcome: partially upheld. FineCheck's commentary is published for research and educational use; not legal advice. Verify any reliance on this decision against the original text.