top of page
White Columns
< Back

Friedlander v. York Condominium Corporation No. 427 - 2022 ONCAT 110 - 2022-10-12

Corporation:

FYCC 427

Date:

2022-10-12

Under:

CAT Decisions - Decision
Indemnification or Compensation
Noise

Summary:

In the case of Friedlander v. York Condominium Corporation No. 427, the applicant alleged that she was experiencing unreasonable noise from the unit above hers. She claimed that the condominium corporation failed to enforce its 2011 renovation rule regarding flooring and sound insulation. She requested the tribunal to order remedial measures and compensation for damages. The respondent, York Condominium Corporation No. 427, argued that there was no evidence of unreasonable noise and that they had taken reasonable steps to investigate the issue. The intervenor stated that he had cooperated and mitigated noise sources. After a lengthy proceeding, the tribunal dismissed Friedlander's application, stating that there was no evidence of unreasonable noise from the unit above. No costs were awarded by the tribunal.

Verdict:

the quick verdict or lesson from the decision in this case is that the applicant's claim of experiencing unreasonable noise from the unit above hers was dismissed by the tribunal due to lack of evidence. It highlights the importance of providing sufficient evidence and following the rules and regulations regarding noise transmission standards in condominium units. Additionally, no costs were awarded in this matter.

Takeaways:

The applicant alleged that she was experiencing unreasonable noise from the unit above hers after its renovation in 2020. She claimed that the condominium corporation failed to enforce its renovation rule regarding flooring and sound insulation.

The respondent, York Condominium Corporation No. 427, argued that there was no evidence of unreasonable noise and that they had taken reasonable steps to investigate the issue. They submitted that the flooring installed in the unit above met the current noise transmission standards set out in their revised flooring rule.

The intervenor claimed that he had cooperated and mitigated noise sources in his unit. He stated that there was no evidence of excessive noise being created by the occupants.

After a lengthy proceeding, the tribunal dismissed Friedlander's application, stating that there was no evidence of unreasonable noise from the unit above. No costs were awarded by the tribunal.

Overall, the decision emphasizes the importance of providing sufficient evidence to support claims of noise disturbance in condominium units and highlights the role of the condominium corporation in investigating and addressing such issues.

Recommendations: 

Provide thorough documentation and evidence: In cases involving disputes such as noise complaints in condominiums, it is crucial for both the complainant and the respondent to gather and present comprehensive documentation and evidence. This can include records of noise disturbances, communication with the condominium corporation, and any investigations or tests conducted. Thorough documentation strengthens the position of both parties and helps the tribunal make an informed decision.

Adhere to condo rules and regulations: It is important for condominium owners and residents to adhere to the rules and regulations set by the condominium corporation. In this case, the applicant alleged that the respondent failed to enforce a renovation rule regarding sound transmission standards. By following and enforcing these rules, it can help prevent disputes and ensure a more harmonious living environment within the condominium community.

Seek professional expertise in dispute resolution: In complex disputes like noise complaints, it can be beneficial to seek the assistance of professionals such as acoustical experts or legal counsel who specialize in condominium disputes. These experts can provide objective assessments, advice, and guidance to both the complainant and the respondent, helping to resolve the dispute in a fair and efficient manner.

bottom of page