Superior Court awards condo owner $30,000 in noise ruling

‘This singular issue has been outstanding ... for the better part of 10 to 11 years,’ writes the justice in her decision about garbage room clamour

Toronto Star
By Bob Aaron Contributing Columnist
06 July 2022

A case released by the Superior Court last month is a textbook example of how condominium boards should respond to noise complaints from a building resident.

Fung-Ling Wong owns a condominium unit at 30 Canterbury Place, in Toronto. Her unit shares a wall with the garbage room that contains a compactor. The room is also the termination point of the garbage chute for all residents in the highrise.

Wong bought her unit in 2010 and immediately began experiencing loud noises at all hours of the day and night. She has been continuously distressed by the wheezing and thumping noise from the compactor, and by crashing sounds and tremors caused by other owners sending their garbage down the chute. Even worse, she felt vibrations caused by the operation of the garbage system.

Starting in 2011, Wong filed numerous complaints with the condominium management relating to the noise and vibrations in her unit.

Over the next few years, the board conducted sound testing and made some repairs. It told residents not to use the garbage chute at night.

Remedial measures were undertaken in 2018, but they were not completely successful. A company called So Quiet Soundproofing was engaged to conduct sound testing. It found the noise to be “unacceptable” causing “human annoyance” in Wong’s unit.

After further complaints, the board hired an engineering firm to conduct a peer review of the So Quiet report and recommendations, but no further action was taken.

A contracting firm was hired by the board in 2020, and its report confirmed the findings of the So Quiet report — after a delay of 2-1/2 years.

The noise continued through early 2021, when Wong finally issued an application in Superior Court to force the condominium to remedy the noise and vibration issues, and pay damages for nuisance and mental distress.

The matter came before Justice Susan Vella last November and her decision was released last month. She noted that under the Condominium Act, the corporation is responsible for maintenance, repair, operation and upkeep of the common elements. It is also required to enforce its own rules in order to ensure that the garbage chutes are closed overnight.

The judge found that the corporation had breached its statutory duties and Wong’s reasonable expectations of quiet enjoyment of her unit. She also referred to what she called “a paralysis of the board” about what to do regarding Wong’s ongoing complaints.

Wong based her court application against the corporation under the oppression section of the Condominium Act, asking the court to force the board to address her complaints.

“What stands out in this situation,” the judge wrote, “is the fact that this singular issue has been outstanding, subject to intermittent steps taken here and there, for the better part of 10 to 11 years.” She found that the board was in breach of the legislation by forcing Wong to endure unacceptable noise and vibration.

Justice Vella ordered the board to pay Wong damages of $30,000 and to have its engineers proceed with the recommended remedial work.

The case provides an important lesson for other condominium boards tempted to avoid their legal duties.

Conclusion and Disposition

The Corporation argued that Wong should expect to experience some enhanced noise and vibrations during waking hours due to having purchased a unit that shared a wall with the garbage room. She also did not try to sell her unit during the 12 years she lived there.

However, the Corporation took too long to address Wong’s real and demonstrated concerns

The judge also thought that it was inappropriate for the Corporation to tell Wong’s lawyer that no further remediation work would be done unless and until Wong rescinded her court application.  “This response suggests that the Corporation has engaged in reprisal against Wong in light of her decision to start this proceeding and is an unacceptable response.”

In addition to the $30,000 award, court costs will be granted.

There are units in condo residential towers that I would avoid. They include:
1.) Units that are beside the garbage chute. (Noise plus insect infestations.)
2.) Units beside or above fitness rooms & basketball courts. (Noise.)
3.) Units under a hot tub or swimming pool. (Water leaks.)

By the way, this condo corporation has since hired a different property management company.

I recieved this reply to the last posting that was about a landlord getting scammed.

You find the most interesting articles to read.

I am surprised by the people who have no sympathy towards the landlord. Are they jealous as to how she obtain the property as that should not matter. The reality is the provinces do need to do something about scammers and dishonest people that get away with it and repeatedly.

She did make the biggest mistake in thinking she is helping someone with their sob story. This is a business and unfortunately, it has to be treated like that and even then you still get the professional scammer but at least you did your best to minimize this.

The fact is even in this province (Ontario), the tenants are favoured more than landlords so really it has nothing to do with the province itself as they all seem to be the same. I think the only City that I have heard which does not favour the tenant is Montreal. You don't pay the rent, you are out of there. They don't waste time.

The sad part is from the very beginning, the tenants had no intention of paying the rent and the landlord-tenant boards allow this to happen over and over again.

We made the same mistake in thinking to help and it always seems to bite back so we stopped doing that. We were lucky in that we didn't have anyone do something like this but we found that you really need to screen potential tenants and we have had to take tenants to the landlord-tenant board and to small claims court. We have always strived to be good landlords to the point that even when tenants were late on their rent and had moved out, they still ended up sending us the money—I think this has happened three times.

I currently have one property which is being rented through the Salvation Army. The Salvation Army approached me when they saw my four-bedroom plus den townhouse up for rent which is nicer than the home I am living in.

The rent is very reasonable as we believe in having long-term tenants so we tend to keep the rent on the lower side. The Salvation Army has a program with Durham Region and they use it as transitional housing to help families. At first there were three guys living there and now there is a single mom with three kids living there.  I did it only because I have always liked the Salvation Army and what they do.

I am guaranteed the rent and they take care of any damages. Any maintenance issues that needs to be fixed, I still take care of.  So far it has been good. There is some damage which they are suppose to be taking care of.

Being a landlord definitely has it's challenges and is not for everyone for sure.

—Reader, Toronto