Bridglall v. York Condominium Corporation No. 202
2022 ONCAT 132 · November 28, 2022 · Other
ONCAT ordered York Condominium Corporation No. 202 to conduct a full noise-and-vibration investigation at its own expense, develop a remediation plan, assign responsibility for implementation, and measure success — after finding that YCC 202 had done 'minimal investigation' into a unit-owner's noise complaints and had instead spent its energy denying the problem and speculating without evidence about the complainant's health. Member Sanford held that s.17(3) of the Ontario Act puts the investigation duty on the corporation, not the complainant — and the cost of that investigation runs with the duty. Direct authority for the proposition that a corporation cannot demand owner-paid documentation as the precondition for taking a noise complaint seriously.
Why this matters for Alberta owners
TL;DR: When a noise (or smoke, or vibration, or odour) complaint comes in, the corporation cannot put the documentation burden on the complainant as a precondition for taking the complaint seriously. Member Sanford in Bridglall ordered York Condominium Corporation No. 202 to investigate at its own expense, develop a remediation plan, and measure the plan's success — after finding the corporation had spent more energy denying there was a problem (and speculating that Ms. Bridglall was "unusually sensitive" because of a recent COVID infection) than actually investigating. The Alberta translation: a condo corporation that enforces a bylaw against an owner without first conducting a meaningful investigation of the underlying conduct has a substantive defect in its case — under the broad reasonableness duty in section 38(1)(d) of the Condominium Property Act and CPR s.73.7's implicit fact-basis requirement.
The facts. Aroma Bridglall owned a unit at YCC 202; the Lozada family lived directly above her with three young children. After the Lozadas replaced the carpet above with vinyl flooring, Ms. Bridglall began hearing what she described as severe noise and vibration — sounds clearly transmitted into her unit including conversations, footsteps, dropped items, and toilet flushes. She complained repeatedly to the corporation. YCC 202's response: send a security officer to stand outside the Lozadas' door for 3-5 minutes at a time, report "ordinary levels of noise," and tell Ms. Bridglall that further investigation would only happen if she paid for acoustical testing and the results came back as nuisance-level. The corporation also wrote to Ms. Bridglall warning her against approaching the Lozadas again — they suggested it might open her to a harassment complaint.
What the tribunal held. Member Sanford treated the corporation's investigative work as inadequate at three different layers. At paragraph 27: "YCC 202 did minimal investigation of Ms. Bridglall's complaints" and "YCC 202 did no acoustical testing in Ms. Bridglall's unit and there is no evidence of acoustical testing anywhere else." At paragraph 35: "It is not correct to say that YCC 202 has taken the reasonable steps necessary to identify the source of the noise and the cause of its being so clearly transmitted into Ms. Bridglall's unit. I conclude that it has conducted minimal investigation." At paragraph 41: "YCC 202 has chosen not the conduct a meaningful investigation. Instead, it has devoted its resources to denying that there is a problem".
The Alberta parallel is section 38(1)(d) of the Condominium Property Act, which makes corporations responsible for control and administration of the common property, including dispute resolution. Combined with CPR s.73.7's requirement that a Proposed Sanction notice rest on identifiable contravention facts — not on rumor, single anonymous complaints, or speculative attribution — the Bridglall principle ports cleanly.
The burden-shifting move the tribunal rejected. The most useful part of Bridglall for an Alberta owner is paragraph 35's treatment of the corporation's pay-for-your-own-investigation offer. YCC 202 proposed acoustical testing inside the complainant's unit conditioned on her paying for the test if the results came back within normal range. Member Sanford treated this as a non-offer — a backwards-loaded conditional that made the investigation the complainant's risk rather than the corporation's duty. The same logic applies to any Alberta corporation that conditions enforcement effort on owner-funded evidence: that's burden-shifting away from a statutory duty.
The corollary: even where Ms. Bridglall's own evidence had problems (her acoustical-meter readings were not properly authenticated; the private-investigator's report was speculative), the Member's analysis didn't collapse onto her shoulders. The corporation could not point to her evidentiary weaknesses as a justification for its own investigative failure. Her job, on the balance of probabilities, was to establish that noise was reaching her unit at nuisance levels — she did, mainly through credible witness testimony. The corporation's job, separately, was to investigate properly — they didn't.
Why this matters for Alberta fine notices. Bridglall is not directly about a fine notice — it's about a corporation's failure to investigate when an owner complained. But the principle inverts in a useful way: if a corporation issues a Proposed Sanction notice to YOU based on someone else's complaint, the same investigation duty applies. The corporation cannot rely on a single complaint, a security officer's hallway observation, or a speculative attribution of the noise/smoke/conduct source. CPR s.73.7(e) requires the notice to identify a specific bylaw allegedly contravened, which requires identifiable contravention facts. 'A complainant said X about you' is not the same as 'X happened' — and Bridglall is direct Ontario authority that the corporation has to do the investigative work to convert the complaint into the fact.
The bottom line: when the corporation enforces against you based on complaints they never properly investigated, the substantive defect is on them, not you. Bridglall is direct authority for the proposition that the corporation's investigation duty cannot be discharged by demanding owner-funded evidence as the precondition for taking the underlying complaint seriously. Run FineCheck on the notice for the procedural defects; raise the Bridglall-style investigation gap as a substantive defect; the tribunal will treat both as legitimate grounds for voiding.
What the tribunal said
Selected excerpts from the Ontario CAT's reasoning. Full decision on CanLII.
[27] YCC 202 did minimal investigation of Ms. Bridglall's complaints. As noted above, it did not inspect the installation workmanship of the Lozada's new floor. ... Generally, based on the security reports filed by YCC 202, the security officer would respond to Ms. Bridglall's complaints by standing outside the closed door of the Lozada's unit and listening for periods ranging from 3 to 5 minutes. The various reports refer to ordinary levels of noise. YCC 202 did no acoustical testing in Ms. Bridglall's unit and there is no evidence of acoustical testing anywhere else. [35] YCC 202 takes the position that it has taken all reasonable steps to deal with Ms. Bridglall's concerns and it is now up to her to provide further documentation that what she is experiencing is excessive noise and vibration. ... It is not correct to say that YCC 202 has taken the reasonable steps necessary to identify the source of the noise and the cause of its being so clearly transmitted into Ms. Bridglall's unit. I conclude that it has conducted minimal investigation. The offer of acoustical testing is, in the vernacular, 'too little, too late'. [39] Of the parties to this action, it is YCC 202 which is best positioned to carry out the investigation, the development of a remediation plan, assignment of responsibility and measurement of success. Under subsection 17(3) of the Act, YCC 202 has 'a duty to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the owners . . . . and the agents and employees of [YCC 202] comply with this Act, the declaration, the by-laws and the rules.' ... Inherent in these powers is the responsibility to balance the sometimes competing interests of individual unit owners. [41] YCC 202 has chosen not the conduct a meaningful investigation. Instead, it has devoted its resources to denying that there is a problem and suggesting, without evidence, that Ms. Bridglall has a medical problem that makes her unusually sensitive to noise or that, again without evidence, she is discriminating against the Lozadas on the basis of family status. [44] In view of YCC 202's delay in acting on Ms. Bridglall's concerns, and the toll it has taken, it is appropriate and fair that the testing, the development of the remedial plan, the assignment of responsibility and the measurement of success will be at YCC 202's expense.
Connects to FineCheck's framework
Jurisdictional note: Ontario CATdecisions are not binding on Alberta's CDRT, but the CDRT will look to other Canadian condo tribunals for guidance under analogous statutory provisions until its own case law develops. The substantial-compliance + prejudice framework used in this decision parallels the test in CDRT Policies and Procedures s.7(b).
Decision date: November 28, 2022 · Citation: 2022 ONCAT 132 · Outcome: other. FineCheck's commentary is published for research and educational use; not legal advice. Verify any reliance on this decision against the original text.