Illegally parked car hit from the back in underground parking - whose fault is it?

This is NOT a ticket but rather an accident question.

I was parked illegally in our level P3 parking garage (condo) by storage as I was moving boxes. I was parking in "incoming" side of the lane. My neighbor who was coming up the ramp from level P4 to get out of parking lot hit my car and failed to tell me. She made a big scene as to why I am parked there but left. Afterwards, I noticed scratch on my bumper. Condo manager looking at the video (which they can't give to me as I have to involve police) says she backed off times and during those attempts hit me.

The laws are a bit ambigous to me here:

- If automobile "A" is parked when it is struck by automobile "B", the driver of automobile "A" is not at fault and the driver of automobile "B" is 100 per cent at fault for the incident.

-If automobile "A" is illegally parked, stopped or standing when it is struck by automobile "B" and if the incident occurs outside a city, town or village, the driver of automobile "A" is 100 per cent at fault and the driver of automobile "B" is not at fault for the incident.

I was in city - North York - but underground condo garage. I was illegally parked - I am assuming since it wasn't line parking - though no signs say don't park.

She said she didn't hit me but had tons of attitude so I want to report her if she has. Apparently the video shows she has hit me.

So am I at fault or not for being illegally parked. I wasn't in the car and couldn't see the accident as I was inside storage.

In this case, I can see one of two options as to how the Fault Determination Rules will apply.

Rule 17(2) does not apply in these circumstances because it requires Automobile "A" (your car) to be BOTH illegally parked AND outside a populated area - If automobile "A" is illegally parked, stopped or standing when it is struck by automobile "B" and if the incident occurs outside a city, town or village, the driver of automobile "A" is 100 per cent at fault and the driver of automobile "B" is not at fault for the incident.

Then either:

(1) Rule 17(1) will apply because Automobile "A" (your car), although parked illegally, is still parked and in this case, it doesn't matter if you're in a populated area or not - If automobile "A" is parked when it is struck by automobile "B", the driver of automobile "A" is not at fault and the driver of automobile "B" is 100 per cent at fault for the incident.

(2) Otherwise, Rules 3 and 5 will apply:

Rule 3. The degree of fault of an insured is determined without reference to,

(a) the circumstances in which the incident occurs, including weather conditions, road conditions, visibility or the actions of pedestrians; or

(b) the location on the insured's automobile of the point of contact with any other automobile involved in the incident.

Rule 5. (1) If an incident is not described in any of these rules, the degree of fault of the insured shall be determined in accordance with the ordinary rules of law.

The "ordinary rules of law" would be civil tort law. You would need to show that the other driver owed you a "duty/standard of care" and they were negligent. The other driver may argue that you are contributorily negligent for illegally parking. In the end, the adjudicator will decide fault between you and the other driver (i.e. 100-0; 50-50; 75-25, etc.)

Thanks for the info.

Who is the adjudicator? I doubt this will go to a court. Wouldn't my insurance be able to tell me who is at fault before I file this? How about collision reporting center. Can I ask them whose fault it is before filing?

Also, why wouldn't the other rule apply? the rule which says a non-moving car is not at fault.

***She apparently (per video footage) move back and forth few times to pass my car and during those times she my car. Also, other cars didn't have to do what she did to pass my car. Her lane was clear but she was just not a skilled driver.

Your insurance provider uses the Ontario Fault Determination Rules. The rules are used by every insurance provider. They are the standard. The providers will be concerned with who pays what in the form of percentages.

Officers are not looking to determine fault percentages. They don't care. That's not up to them to decide. They may decide to charge one party or even both. Either way, their decision isn't what determines fault from an insurance point of view. Just because one side is charged doesn't mean they are at fault. The charge may not be relevant to the accident or even issued correctly. If that person also manages to beat the charge, it doesn't mean they are off the hook through insurance either.

The two processes are separate. If you go through your insurance provider, they'll likely ask that event is documented in a police report. That would mean you'd have to go through a collision reporting centre either way.