One of the most fascinating things about condominium law is how easy it can be — on paper — to argue either side of a dispute. With the right framing, the right facts, and a capable lawyer, almost any position can be made to sound reasonable. That's the nature of legal advocacy.

But governance is not advocacy.

Boards are not here to "win" arguments. They are here to govern communities.

And that distinction is very important when it comes to communicating with owners and what might appear on the surface to be a request to bend the rules.

The role of the board isn't to be perfect — it's to be reasonable

A condominium corporation's declaration, by-laws, and rules form the backbone of how a community operates. These documents are not casual guidelines — they are binding, enforceable, and generally speaking, not easily challenged.

If a board is enforcing its governing documents consistently, fairly, and in good faith, courts and tribunals are typically left with very little room to interfere. That's not because boards are always right — but because the system is designed to respect the corporation's authority to govern itself.

But here's where things get interesting.

Strict enforcement, without context, can sometimes lead to unreasonable outcomes. And that's where good governance separates itself from rigid rule-following.

Real life doesn't always fit neatly into the rules

Let's look at one of the most common issues in townhouse condo communities: parking.

How many cars can I fit in a driveway? How should they be registered? Who gets to park in which spaces? Where are my visitors allowed to park? And what can the corporation do if someone is in my spot?

The framework for boards to answer these questions should be in your governing documents — but those answers could be different from community to community and even within the same community depending on the situation.

Many corporations have rules that prohibit owners from parking in visitor parking. On its face, that makes perfect sense — those spaces are intended for guests.

But what happens when your visitor is mobility challenged and needs closer access? Should the owner be forced to find offsite parking while their visitor uses the unit driveway or the owner-assigned space? Or should the owner be permitted to temporarily use visitor parking for their own vehicle on behalf of their guest?

Now take it a step further.

What if an owner needs to switch vehicles in their driveway and, for a brief moment, parks in a fire route while doing so? Technically, that's a violation. But what if there's an entirely empty row of visitor parking spaces directly across from the unit that could be used safely for those few minutes?

Should that be treated the same way as someone blocking emergency access?

Of course not. And most boards wouldn't treat it that way.

But what if that same owner leaves their vehicle warming up in the visitor parking for 30 minutes while they get ready for work? And what if that's five days a week? And what if it's the same time the snow plow would usually be clearing the visitor section?

There are so many distinguishing factors in that scenario that the board and owner might both end up on opposite ends of a place they both don't want to be.

Consistency and documentation equal strong governance

The key isn't to ignore the rules. It's to apply them with reasonable judgment.

Boards that acknowledge real-life scenarios, allow for reasonable exceptions, and — most importantly — document how and why those exceptions are handled, demonstrate strong governance.

Consistency is everything.

If one owner is given flexibility in a reasonable situation, others in similar circumstances should be treated the same way. That's how boards protect themselves — not by being inflexible, but by being fair and predictable.

When legal strategy meets governance reality

In disputes, especially those that escalate to lawyers or tribunals, you'll often see creative legal arguments designed to avoid penalties or shift responsibility. Sometimes those arguments are clever. Sometimes they're even successful.

But the underlying question doesn't change: Did the corporation act reasonably?

If the answer is yes — if the board followed its governing documents, applied them consistently, exercised good judgment, and documented incidents properly — then it has done its job.

That's what courts tend to look for. Not perfection. Not technical loopholes. Reasonableness.

The bottom line

Rules matter. Governing documents matter. Legal arguments matter.

But none of them matter more than good governance.

Boards that govern with reasonableness, consistency, and transparency don't just reduce their legal risk — they build stronger, more cooperative communities.

And in the long run, that's what every condominium corporation should be aiming for.