Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Choose your role:
Abrecht v. Sheikh Al-Zoor - 2023 ONCAT 49 - 2023-03-24
Corporation:
ASA 49
Date:
2023-03-24
Summary:
In the case of Abrecht v. Sheikh Al-Zoor, the owner of a unit in Peel Condominium Corporation No. 98 (PCC98), filed a complaint against the respondent, claiming unreasonable noise and nuisance from the unit above. The applicant requested the tribunal to order the respondent to cease causing a nuisance, as prohibited by the Condominium Act, 1998, and PCC98's governing documents. The tribunal conducted a written online hearing and reviewed the evidence presented. After considering the evidence, the tribunal found that there was insufficient proof of unreasonable noise or nuisance, and dismissed the applcant's application.
Under:
CAT Decisions - Decision
Noise
Vibration
Verdict:
In the case of Abrecht v. Sheikh Al-Zoor, the applicant filed a complaint against the respondent alleging unreasonable noise and nuisance from the unit directly above hers in a condominium. The Tribunal found that there was insufficient evidence to support her claim and dismissed her application. Therefore, the respondent was not found in violation of the Condominium Act, 1998 or the condominium's governing documents. No costs were awarded.
The key takeaway is that in this case, the evidence did not establish that the noise and disturbances from the respondent's unit were unreasonable or constituted a violation of the applicable regulations and rules.
Takeaways:
Here are some key takeaways from the decision in Abrecht v. Sheikh Al-Zoor:
Parties Involved: The case involves an application brought by the Applicant the Respondent. The Intervenor in the case is Peel Condominium Corporation No. 98 (PCC98), represented by Anthony Piacentini.
Complaint: The Applicant complained about unreasonable noise and nuisance coming from the unit directly above her, which is owned by the Respondent. The noise included running, jumping, thumping, banging, and the sounds of young children playing.
Legal Framework: The case was decided based on Section 117(2) of the Condominium Act, 1998, which addresses unreasonable noise that constitutes a nuisance, annoyance, or disruption to individuals in a condominium.
Evidence: The Applicant provided audio recordings as evidence of the noise disturbances. However, these recordings were made from locations outside her unit because recording from within her unit was challenging due to a concrete ceiling.
Decision: The Tribunal found that the evidence did not establish that there was either unreasonable noise or nuisance, and there was no violation of PCC98's governing documents. As a result, the application brought by the Applicant was dismissed.
Overall, the decision emphasizes the importance of providing convincing evidence when alleging unreasonable noise in a condominium setting, and it underscores the need for a substantial and unreasonable interference to establish a nuisance claim.
Recommendations:
Effective Communication: In cases involving disputes between neighbors in a condominium setting, it's essential for parties to engage in open and constructive communication. Encourage condominium owners to address their concerns and grievances with their neighbors in a respectful and considerate manner. Many issues can be resolved through effective communication and understanding each other's perspectives.
Document Evidence Adequately: When submitting evidence in a dispute case, it's crucial to provide clear and compelling documentation to support your claims. In this case, the complainant relied on audio recordings of noise disturbances. Parties involved in similar disputes should ensure that their evidence is collected comprehensively and can effectively demonstrate the issue at hand. The quality and relevance of the evidence can significantly impact the outcome of the case.
Proper Investigation and Expert Opinions: In condominium disputes involving noise complaints, condominium corporations and tribunals should consider conducting thorough investigations, which may include acoustic testing or expert opinions. In situations where determining excessive noise levels is challenging, expert assessments can provide valuable insights into whether the noise exceeds reasonable limits, helping in reaching fair and informed decisions.