Condo resident loses fight to install security camera in door peephole

Also, is late-night loud talking allowed on condo balconies?

Strata (condo) privacy dispute: Tenant loses fight to install security camera in door peephole

The Georgia Strait
by Carlito Pablo 07 May 2020

Shaun Herr will have to find another means of security at the condo unit he is renting.

Herr had claimed that another occupant in the building has been harassing him.

That person is also allegedly loitering on the hallway outside the rental.

However, Herr has lost his fight with the strata corporation over his wish to have a security camera in his door peephole.

A B.C. Human Rights Tribunal ruled in favour of the strata, which contended that the installation of a video camera violates the privacy of other residents and constitutes an unapproved alteration of common property.

Tribunal member Richard McAndrew noted in his reasons for decision that the strata specifically argued that this would breach the Personal Information Protection Act or PIPA.

McAndrew noted that PIPA “prohibits strata corporations from placing video cameras on common property unless the strata has bylaws allowing the video camera and residents are notified”.

“I find that the strata does not have bylaws allowing video cameras in common areas,” McAndrew said.

The exterior of the door is common property, according to the tribunal member, because the strata plan did not designate the doors as limited common property.

Limited common property is comprised of parts or areas that are meant for the exclusive use of one or more strata lots or units.

Herr installed a video camera in the door’s peephole, but was ordered by the strata to remove the device after it was discovered.

Herr wanted to reinstall the camera, but was not granted permission by the strata corporation.

Herr then filed an application with the tribunal seeking an order to have the strata allow him to reinstall the video doorbell device.

McAndrew related that Herr claimed that he needs the video doorbell device for security because another occupant in the building has been harassing him.

“The tenant says this person has left notes on his door generally complaining about dog noise,” McAndrew wrote. Herr also claimed that the person “loiters outside the strata lot”.

“I agree the tenant has a legitimate interest in protecting his security with a  camera,” McAndrew stated.

However, according to McAndrew, “this alone does not make the strata’s refusal to allow video cameras unreasonable”.

“Since the video device will affect the privacy of others in the common property hallway, it is appropriate for the strata to also consider the privacy rights of the strata owners,” McAndrew wrote. 

Herr argued that video camera “does not continuously record the hallway”.

“However, I find that the video device would record strata residents in the common area hallway even if the camera recording is limited. I find that this does affect residents’ privacy,” McAndrew stated.
https://bit.ly/2LX0rte

Too many condo residents take security in condo towers for granted. That can be a big mistake. I suggest that condo residents purchase electronic cameras that are connected to their mobile phones and install them inside their units.

In one downtown Toronto condo, the conceirge phoned an owner to inform her that there was a parcel for her at the front desk. She was in Florida and she asked that the package be dropped inside the door of her unit.

A valet took the parcel up to her unit. He then went into the kitchen and helped himself from the frig. What he did not know was that the owner was watching him on her mobile phone. The owner phoned the property manager and told her what she was seeing on her phone. When the valet came down from the unit, he was fired.
—H. Marshall

Can a condo prohibit talking on a balcony after 11 pm?

by Michelle Kelly 10 April 2020 (abridged)

An owner complains about noise from her neighbour’s balcony late at night and asks the condominium to prohibit the neighbour from talking on the balcony after 11 p.m. The condominium does not have a rule prohibiting residents from talking on their balconies at night, but has a rule prohibiting noise that disturbs the other residents.

For years, an owner complained of noise from her neighbour. Most of the complaints related to loud conversations on the balcony late at night. Other times loud music and conversations that could be heard through the walls of her unit. The owner said that she found it difficult to work or sleep because of the noise and has developed anxiety over the problem. For over 8 years she complained to the condominium about the noise.

The owner began to complain again in 2016, three years after the last demand letter was sent to the neighbours. A new demand letter was sent and there were no more complaints for the remainder of the year or the following year.

In 2018, the noise complaints started again. The noise was verified by security and confirmed by other neighbours.

At the hearing, the condominium took the position that it acted reasonably in response to the complaints, reducing the noise from the neighbours, and the owner must expect some degree of noise from the neighbours. The owner argued that the condominium had acted oppressively towards her by unfairly disregarding her interests over the interests of her neighbour.

The court found that the owner had “no doubt…been subjected to loud noise from her neighbours…who appear to show a lack of consideration for [the owner’s] right to have a quiet home, particularly during the night.” The question for the court was whether the condominium had acted oppressively in responding to her complaints, and if so, what was the appropriate remedy?

The court said “no one is free of blame”. The neighbour was inconsiderate in making too much noise. The owner was aggressive and hostile toward the condominium’s staff and directors. She was entrenched in her position that there should be no talking on the balconies after 11 p.m and unwilling to accept other perspectives. There was no evidence of steps she had taken to mitigate the disturbances, such as wearing earplugs or acquiring a device, such as a humidifier or other item, to cover the noise.

The court found that, prior to 2018, the condominium should have done more to enforce against the noisy neighbour, 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 court was satisfied that the condominium had not unfairly disregarded her interests because it responded quickly to the complaints and there were long gaps in time during which there were no complaints.

In the end, the court dismissed the owner’s application as it was not satisfied that the condominium acted oppressively toward her.

In reading the decision it was clear that the court was not pleased with the condominium’s refusal to disclose the terms of the agreement to the owner.

This case serves as a reminder for all parties involved to be reasonable. The neighbour ought to have been more considerate of the owner, especially at night. The owner ought to have been less aggressive and hostile toward the staff and directors. The condominium ought to applied more pressure to the neighbour to be considerate of the owner. As the court stated, no one was free of blame.

As far as the questions posed at the beginning of this post, it seems reasonable for a condominium to, at a minimum, send demand letters to the neighbour and charge those costs to the neighbour (if the condominium has adequate indemnification clauses in the declaration). Mediation, arbitration, or court would be reasonable next steps if the complaints continue.

The case is available on CanLii if you would like to read it. You can find it here:  https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2020/2020onsc1262/2020onsc1262.pdf
https://bit.ly/2ZzyQXo

“There was no evidence of steps she had taken to mitigate the disturbances, such as wearing earplugs or acquiring a device, such as a humidifier or other item, to cover the noise.”

“the condominium should have done more to enforce against the noisy neighbour, 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.”’

These comments from the judge surprise me. Do victims of excessive noise need to wear earplugs or buy items to mitigate excessive noise to show that they are acting in good faith?

The second comment is interesting as he suggests that the condo corporation should have used legal costs to put economic pressure on the noisy neighbour.
—H. Marshall