Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Choose your role:
Jalbout v. Brown et al. - 2023 ONCAT 147 - 2023-10-12
Corporation:
JB 147
Date:
Thu Oct 12 2023 00:00:00 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time)
Summary:
The case, Jalbout v Brown et al, heard by the Condominium Authority Tribunal, involved a dispute between the applicant and her neighbors and others, in a townhouse-style condominium community in Ottawa. The key issue was whether the respondents' behavior constituted a nuisance under the Condominium Act 1998. The applicant claimed that the neighbors' security lighting illuminated her backyard, while the respondents argued that the lighting was approved by the condominium board and did not encroach upon the applicant's property. The respondents also accused the applicant of excessive lighting and invading their privacy by sitting beyond her property line and staring into their bedroom window. The tribunal ruled that both parties had to address the spillover of backyard lighting and that each party would bear their own costs.
Under:
CAT Decisions - Decision
Light
Noise
Odour
Other Type of Nuisance, Annoyance or Disruption
Smoke and/or vapour
Vibration
Verdict:
The Condominium Authority Tribunal case of Jalbout v Brown et al involved allegations of nuisance between neighbors in the Carleton Condominium Corporation No 272 community. The Tribunal held that spillover from backyard lighting onto neighboring properties must be addressed, and no other nuisance claims were supported by evidence. Both parties were directed to submit further written complaints to the condominium owner or board in case of any future issues.
Takeaways:
In the case of Jalbout v Brown et al, the Condominium Authority Tribunal found that both parties had to address potential spillover from their respective backyard lighting to the other party's property. However, the evidence did not support the other claims of nuisance, and the parties were instructed to convey any further complaints in writing to the owner or the condominium board. This decision highlights the importance of addressing and resolving disputes between neighboring units in a condominium community, and the role of the tribunal in enforcing the Condominium Act.
Recommendations:
Encourage mediation and conflict resolution: The parties involved the applicant and the respondent, attempted to negotiate and mediate their dispute through the Condominium Authority Tribunal (CAT) process without success. It is recommended that they continue their efforts to find a resolution through mediation or alternative dispute resolution methods, as this can often lead to mutually agreeable solutions.
Ensure compliance with regulations on backyard lighting: The CAT decision highlighted that both parties had to address any spillover from their respective backyard lighting onto the other party's property. It is recommended that both take steps to restrict or adjust their backyard lighting to prevent any disturbances to their neighbors.
Establish clearer guidelines or rules within the condominium community: The CAT decision mentioned conflicts related to lighting, noise, and other issues between the parties. To prevent future disputes, it may be beneficial for Carleton Condominium Corporation No 272 (CCC 272) to articulate clear guidelines or rules addressing these common issues. This can help set expectations and promote a harmonious coexistence among residents.