27/02/2020 – Jurisdiction Ontario
Part 72 published on 01/12/2020
No oppression in relation to condominium corporation’s response to noise complaints
The owner claimed that the condominium corporation’s failure to respond adequately to her complaints about noise from her neighbour constituted oppression (namely, disregard for her interests). The Court dismissed the claim, but also noted that the condominium corporation could have done more in this case. The Court said:
The respondent’s position has been clear since 2012. While it will enforce the rules in response to a verified complaint, and says it has done so, it will not prohibit an owner from having a conversation in normal voices on a balcony at any time. While at times the respondent may have also taken the position that it could not restrict how people use their balconies at all, this is clearly not correct – there are rules regarding storage on balconies, and the corporation can impose restrictions to ensure compliance with the general rules of the condominium.
…
…in my view, prior to 2018, the respondent ought to have done more to escalate matters, such as putting economic pressure on the neighbour for her to behave more appropriately late at night, such as by charging her for the condominium’s legal fees associated with the complaints. However, the respondent did respond to the complaints promptly and given the long gaps in time during which there were no complaints, I am not prepared to say that the respondent, up to 2018, unfairly disregarded the interests of the applicant, or has acted in bad faith.
Similarly, I cannot conclude that the respondent’s position that it cannot tell people how to live in their units, and therefore that it will not prohibit conversations in normal voices on balconies late at night, to be unreasonable. It is not my role to second-guess an approach to the application of the condominium’s rules that is within a range of reasonable options.
…
Where I do find fault with the respondent, however, is in their failure to disclose the settlement with the neighbour to Ms. Zaman. This settlement achieves much of what Ms. Zaman seeks – no walking in hard or high heels in the unit, and no loud conversations on the balcony after 11 p.m.. While she would like to have a complete ban on conversations on the balcony after 11 p.m., the respondent has, not unreasonably, rejected imposing a rule of that kind.
…
Although this application is dismissed, I have stated my concern that the respondent ought to have done more in earlier years. In addition, had the terms of the settlement agreement been disclosed by the respondent in July 2019 and the parties then focused on its enforcement, this application might have been avoided.