THIS MATTER IS NOW COMPLETE AND WE HAVE CLOSED OUR FILE
NOTICE OF DISCONTINUANCE OF
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
COURT FILE NO. CD-09-00379652-00CP
AGAINST IMPERIAL PARKING CANADA CORPORATION
CARRYING ON BUSINESS AS IMPARK
A lawsuit commenced against Imperial Parking Canada Corporation carrying on business as Impark (“Impark”) in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has been discontinued.
The lawsuit was commenced as a proposed class proceeding under the Class Proceedings Act, .S.O., 1992, c. 6.
Graham and Miceli alleged that Impark’s violation fees charged at its parking lots in Ontario were improper, unconscionable and unenforceable.
A discontinuance of the lawsuit means that it is not going forward or being pursued.
If you are/were relying on this action to protect your rights, you should seek your own legal advice immediately.
Discontinuance of the action will mean that applicable limitation periods in respect of these claims, which limitation periods had been suspended, will now run again.
Click Here to Read the Order re: Discontinuance of Justice Perell
Certification of Action
This action was certified as a class proceeding by the Honourable Mr. Justice Perell pursuant to Reasons for Decision issued September 16, 2010.
Click Here to Read the Order re: Certification of Justice Perell
Click Here to Read the Reasons for Decision of Justice Perell
Once steps are taken to regularize matters as ordered by Justice Perell, the action can move forward as a class proceeding.
Steps will be taken to attempt to arrange matters so that this matter can move forward.
Further updates will be posted shortly.
Click Here to Read Motion Record Re: Certification
Overview of Claim
A statement of claim was issued in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Toronto on May 28, 2009 proposing a class action seeking damages relating to parking violation fees charged by Imperial Parking Canada Corporation (“Impark”) in all Impark parking lots in Ontario.
The claim seeks damages of $50 million, plus punitive and exemplary damages.
The action has been commenced under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c.6, as amended, by Toronto residents, Stephanie Graham and Angela Miceli.
The Statement of Claim alleges that Impark charges violation fees to all individuals who park vehicles and who overstay beyond the parking time allotted through purchase of a parking voucher or through failure to display a parking voucher.
The Statement of Claim alleges that individuals who park at Impark parking lots enter into parking agreements to park vehicles for flat fees by the hour. Parking vouchers are purchased, however, the parking vouchers contain very little information and do not contain the full terms of the agreement entered into.
The Statement of Claim alleges that if an individual overstays beyond the time purchased or fails to purchase and/or display a parking voucher, Impark charges a violation fee of almost $70.00 which amount constitutes a fine.
The fine charged is well in excess of the normally-applicable parking rates and even well above the daily maximum chargeable at the lots.
The Statement of Claim furthermore alleges that Impark’s violation notices are similar in appearance and nature to the parking tickets which are issued by municipal authorities for parking violation on municipal streets.
The plaintiff, Stephanie Graham, parked at an Impark parking lot on York Street in Toronto. She paid a fee to park through purchase of a parking voucher at a mechanical dispenser. The parking voucher did not set-out any violation fee if Graham overstayed beyond the time purchased.
When Graham returned to her vehicle, a violation notice left on her vehicle notified her that she was being charged a violation fee of $68.90.
The plaintiff, Angela Miceli, was also charged a violation fee, however, she did not even leave her vehicle at an Impark parking lot. Her son was using her vehicle and he parked and overstayed forty-three minutes at an Impark parking lot and was charged a violation fee of $68.90, despite the fact that the posted daily maximum charge at the lot was only $5.00.
The Statement of Claim alleges various breaches of the Consumer Protection Act and says that the violation fees are improper and illegal.
The statement of claim contains allegations which have yet to be proven in Court.
The claim is being pursued by Scarfone Hawkins LLP with co-counsel Bates Barristers.
We are compiling a database of individuals who have been charged and who have paid violation fees to Impark.
If you have not already contacted us, we would appreciate hearing from you as it might assist us in pursuing this claim. You may contact us via e-mail, telephone, mail, courier, fax, etc.
Click Here to Read Statement of Claim
Click Here to Read Press Release