21/11/2024– Jurisdiction Ontario
Part 88 published on 01/12/2024
Hallway light that was activated by motion did not cause an unreasonable nuisance
The Applicants alleged that a motion activated light in the hallway outside their unit caused them unreasonable nuisance that interfered with their enjoyment of their home.
The Applicants confirmed that the light did not penetrate their unit when their door was closed. However, several times a day, when they left or entered their unit, the light would turn on and shine into their home.
The Tribunal found that the light in this case did not meet the threshold of unreasonableness and was not a nuisance. The Tribunal said:
The question becomes: would a reasonable owner‑occupier of MTCC 864 consider that the motion‑controlled light in the corridor adjacent the Applicants’ unit is unreasonable? Relevant considerations would include the intensity of the light, how it fits into the other lighting in the corridor, whether the motion‑activation is disruptive or abrupt, and the frequency with which it shines into the Applicants’ hallway. The circumstances in which the light was installed are also relevant. The fact that MTCC 864 installed the lights to increase energy‑efficiency, reduce costs and provide safe lighting for the end of the hallway are valid considerations. After considering these factors and the facts set out above, I conclude that a reasonable owner‑occupier of MTCC 864 would not find the light unreasonable.
Grimes, Courrier v. Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 864