An Oshawa homeowner finds himself no further ahead in his quest to solve his parking problems after a lawsuit against the city was dismissed.

Joseph Isiah launched the $25,000 claim after what he said has been more than a decade of conflicting messages from the city on his efforts to address inadequate parking space at his home on Secretariat Place.

“We just want to park,” Isiah said outside the courtroom where his claim was heard Jan. 6.

Article Continued Below

A judge dismissed the lawsuit, finding it had been filed outside the legal limitation period.

“We’re not here for the money,” Isiah insisted. “If we can resolve the problem, there’s no issue.”

Isiah moved his family into the newly-built home in 2005 and quickly realized the issue: when a vehicle is pulled fully into the driveway, the doors of the car are blocked from completely opening because of posts by the front steps. Isiah had interlocking brick installed on the front yard of the home and began parking there.

Isiah said that in 2006 he was notified by the city that while the brick was not a problem, parking on it was. He said, however, that the municipality elected not to pursue a bylaw infraction; he continued to park on the brick for the next 11 years, with the understanding that he had the city’s permission to do so.

Article Continued Below

In March 2017, Isiah was informed by Oshawa’s bylaws department there had been a complaint, and he was in violation of regulations for parking in front of the house.

Click to expand

“It was from that point we tried to solve the problem,” he said.

Isiah said he took advice from city officials and began work on applying for a minor variance that would allow him to continue parking on the brick. He said he was taken aback, however, when he was informed city staff would not support the application.

“Why apply for it?” he said.

Isiah began parking on the street — and racking up tickets for doing so. He said his impasse with the city led to the court action. He claims the city ought to have detected potential parking problems with the homes before approving them for occupancy. The inadequate parking is likely to affect his home’s resale value, he said.

“Why should we pay for this burden when the city made the mistake?” Isiah asked.

But Adam Kosnick, the lawyer who represented the city in court Jan. 6, said the municipality bears no responsibility for Isiah’s parking problem.

“The city did not build this house,” Kosnick argued. “The builder did.”

Kosnick said the appropriate course of action for Isiah would be to pursue the minor variance and, in the event the application is unsuccessful, appeal that decision.

Kosnick added city staff have attempted to help Isiah address the issue: “They actually filled out the minor variance form for him,” the lawyer said.

Isiah countered that regardless of any assistance he’s received from city staff, he’d been told the application would ultimately fail.

“It was a dead end,” he said.

Isiah noted that the dismissal of his claim leaves him essentially where he started.

“I think the city has a responsibility to oversee the builder during the building process,” he said. “It’s the oversights in this process that really brought us here today.”