Farinha v. White (Condominium Authority Tribunal) April 16, 2024

04/16/2024 – Jurisdiction Ontario
Part 86 published on 01/06/2024
Respondent owner was not causing unreasonable noise.

The Applicant owner alleged that the Respondent (who lived in the unit above) was causing unreasonable noise.   The Tribunal dismissed the Application.  The Tribunal said:

Having considered all of the evidence, I find there is insufficient evidence to conclude that the sounds the Applicant complains of amount to an unreasonable noise. Rather, they are more readily characterized as the sounds of everyday living in a household with young children who will create some noises of the kind complained of in this case. It is not the Tribunal’s role to direct how the children’s activities are managed unless they are found to create unreasonable noise. Similarly, there are complaints of “heavy walking” by someone in the Respondent’s unit, yet there is compliance with the rule relating to sound absorption – the rug or carpet rule. It is not the Tribunal’s role to direct whether a person is permitted to pace in their home, or if they do pace, where that pacing occurs.

Though I find that the Respondent is not creating unreasonable noise, I do acknowledge that the noises heard by the Applicant and her daughter impact them. They are subjectively annoyed by the sounds they hear. But the disturbance must be found to be objectively unreasonable. The Applicant’s subjective annoyance or experience of being disrupted is not sufficient to make the situation one that the Tribunal can remedy within its jurisdiction. In a communal living environment like a condominium, a certain amount of noise, and perhaps even the potential for a moderate degree of annoyance, may be inevitable and must be tolerated.

In coming to this conclusion, I am not stating that the Applicant is not a reasonable person. She works shifts – her sleeping hours vary and it is important that she get her sleep and as a result her level of tolerance may be lower; however, this is not an objective indication of unreasonable noise. She stated that she has taken steps to block sounds with a fan or headphones. And the evidence from the Respondent is that they have also taken steps to mitigate sound, with rugs and floor mats. This situation highlights that condominium living necessarily involves living in community with shared rights and responsibilities, and in this instance particularly, a show of empathy and consideration for each other’s life circumstances.

SCC 181 has attempted to resolve the issues between the Applicant and Respondent in an effort to ensure that all have the right to enjoy their home. However, reliance on the subjective view of Ms. Snowball is not sufficient. Although Rule 8 refers to the opinion of the manager in determining if there is a disturbance affecting the comfort of one’s home, this does not mean that this depends on the individual manager’s subjective opinion. Rather, it requires the manager to make an objective and reasonably informed determination of the extent of the noise at issue. Nevertheless, I do commend Ms. Snowball for the efforts made to help resolve the issue. In her October 23, 2023 letter to the Respondent and his wife, she suggested that wearing slippers or stocking feet in the units and minimizing the children’s running and jumping might help curb the noise, especially after 8 pm. These are practical proposals which I encourage the Respondent to consider.

Farinha v. White, 2024 ONCAT 57