06/01/2026– Jurisdiction Ontario
Part 94 published on 01/06/2026
Noise that was the subject of this complaint was not unreasonable
The resident’s complaint about noise from the unit above was dismissed because the sounds identified were consistent with normal daily living in a multi-residential building. The Tribunal concluded that the corporation had taken reasonable investigation steps and that the reported sounds did not constitute a legal nuisance.
The Tribunal said:
To find that s. 117 (2) of the Act has been breached, I need to find that the noise the Applicant complains of is unreasonable and amounts to a nuisance, annoyance or disruption at law. To find this, the evidence must demonstrate the interference created by the alleged noise must be substantial and unreasonable; the requirement for substantial interference can incorporate a component of frequency and duration of the interference as well as volume and must be considered in context. A ‘trivial’ interference will not suffice to support a claim in nuisance, annoyance or disruption.
While I accept that the Applicant is hearing noise that comes from the unit of the Respondent Owners, based on the evidence before me I cannot conclude that this noise is unreasonable and causing a nuisance, annoyance or disruption at law.
…
The evidence demonstrates that the noise, while audible, is akin to regularly living noise that ought to be expected and tolerated when living in a multi-residential community.
…
Acting reasonably to enforce compliance does not require a corporation to take the steps dictated by any individual owner. What constitutes reasonable enforcement depends on a variety of contextual factors. For example, boards must act in good faith, with due diligence, and the decision must lay within a range of reasonable choices. In this case I find the corporation acted reasonably. It took the Applicant’s complaints seriously, attempted to verify and investigate them, and did so to the best of their ability given the Applicant’s lack of willingness to cooperate in some forms of investigation and could have assisted in helping the corporation determine if unreasonable noise was being created or experienced. It attempted to verify non-compliance before taking enforcement action, which is reasonable.
Kaur v. Waterloo North Condominium Corporation No. 61, Jovanovic, Jovanovic, 2026 ONCAT 101