Kwok v. Man, Lo
2025 ONCAT 88 · May 30, 2025 · Other
ONCAT dismissed a noise complaint where the applicant could not establish unreasonable noise above the OBC-compliant building's normal level. The decision establishes that 40-60 dB readings are not inherently unreasonable, that ordinary activities of daily living of a family with young children do not generally constitute a nuisance absent objective evidence of nature, frequency and intensity, and that an OBC-compliant building structure (confirmed by acoustic testing) absolves the corporation of further remediation duty under s.117(2)(a). Useful as a benchmark for what evidentiary weight a corporation must place on a complainant's subjective experience.
Why this matters for Alberta owners
The applicant in this case reported being disturbed by sounds from the unit above — footsteps, running children, dragging chairs, thumping. She even purchased a decibel meter and measured readings in the 40–60 dB range — though, by her own evidence, she was unable to capture or record any of them. The tribunal found none of that sufficient. As Member Cook wrote at paragraph 20, "A finding that noise is unreasonable requires evidence that confirms the nature of the noise and establishes that the noise is objectively unreasonable." Subjective testimony, without corroborating documentation of when, how often, and how intensely the noise occurred, simply did not meet that bar.
The decibel evidence is particularly instructive. Member Cook explained at paragraph 24 that "decibel levels of even 60 are not loud and are consistent with background sound levels experienced in a household of people. A normal conversation between two people could be measured at 60 decibels." In other words, the numbers the applicant captured were not inherently alarming — they described ordinary domestic life.
Equally important is what the acoustic study confirmed: the building's floor-ceiling assembly met Ontario Building Code standards. Member Cook noted at paragraph 26 that "unless there is some factor such as poor construction or defects (ruled out in this case by the acoustical study), noise resulting from normal activities of daily living is not generally considered unreasonable, particularly when there is an absence of supporting evidence confirming the nature, frequency and intensity of the noise." A structurally sound building does not guarantee silence — it guarantees compliance.
The decision closes with a statement that resonates for any multi-unit resident: at paragraph 27, "A family of 5 including young children will inevitably create noise in the process of living their lives. In multi-residential community living some noise from daily activities must be expected."
For Alberta owners, this Ontario ruling carries persuasive — not binding — weight; the Alberta CDRT, which launched April 1, 2026, weighs ONCAT decisions through its own substantial-compliance and prejudice analysis rather than treating them as controlling authority.
What the tribunal said
Selected excerpts from the Ontario CAT's reasoning. Full decision on CanLII.
[20] A finding that noise is unreasonable requires evidence that confirms the nature of the noise and establishes that the noise is objectively unreasonable. [24] The decibel scale is logarithmic which means that 60 decibels is many times more intense than 40 decibels. As background noise, decibel levels of even 60 are not loud and are consistent with background sound levels experienced in a household of people. A normal conversation between two people could be measured at 60 decibels. However, if there is no significant background noise, the sudden onset of noise at 60 decibels would be noticeable and could be disruptive (see for example: Park v. Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2775, 2023 ONCAT 171). [26] As noted in the cases referred to by counsel for YRSCC 1331 and Mr. Man, unless there is some factor such as poor construction or defects (ruled out in this case by the acoustical study), noise resulting from normal activities of daily living is not generally considered unreasonable, particularly when there is an absence of supporting evidence confirming the nature, frequency and intensity of the noise. [27] A family of 5 including young children will inevitably create noise in the process of living their lives. In multi-residential community living some noise from daily activities must be expected. To be considered 'unreasonable' there must be supporting evidence confirming the nature and intensity of the noise. There is none here.
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: May 30, 2025 · Citation: 2025 ONCAT 88 · 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.