The Courts Clarify a Condominium Corporation’s Obligations When a Unit Owner Complains About Noise from Another Unit Owner

In August 2022, Justice Morgan, of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, held that a unit owner had not been oppressed notwithstanding he was dissatisfied with steps taken by the condominium board to address his noise complaints. In January 2024, the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the unit owner’s appeal, upholding Justice Morgan’s decision.[1]  

This case is instructive for condominium corporations, condominium managers, and their insurers. Some key takeaways include:

1. There is a distinction between noise originating from another unit versus a common element,
2. There is a distinction between noise originating from a lawful versus unlawful use of the unit,
3. Condominium boards’ decision-making is entitled to deference, and
4. A unit owner’s dissatisfaction with the board’s reasonable response to a noise complaint is insufficient to establish oppression.

History of the Noise Dispute

The appellant lived directly below a woman and her two children, one of whom required around-the-clock medical care involving a number of pieces of medical equipment. A nurse attended in the home every evening to care for the child overnight.

The appellant made noise complaints to security and management alleging the noise from his upstairs neighbours was disruptive, especially at night. He began making noise complaints in 2015. Building staff repeatedly investigated the source of the noise, including speaking with the upstairs resident. When the condo determined that the noise was caused by the upstairs residents’ daughter playing too loudly, it sent a warning letter and the situation was seemingly rectified. The board offered to conduct a noise study and further noise inspections, however the appellant declined stating that the issue had largely abated.

Some four years later, the appellant began making noise complaints once more. By March 2021 he had retained legal counsel. The board commissioned multiple noise studies via an acoustical engineer, which did not verify any issues with the common elements with respect to noise/vibration control or any significant sound events occurring within the appellant’s unit. The appellant retained an acoustical engineer to conduct a noise test which differed in both methodology and conclusions to that of the engineer retained by the board.