CONDOMINIUM AUTHORITY TRIBUNAL
DATE: August 22, 2025
CASE: 2024-00745SA
Order under section 1.47 of the Condominium Act, 1998.
Member: Patricia McQuaid, Vice-Chair
The Applicant, Reynold Sooknanan
Self-Represented
The Respondent, Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 872
Represented by Justin McLarty, Counsel
The Respondent
Jeannelle Keeling
Did not appear
Hearing: Written Online Hearing – May 28, 2025, to August 14, 2025
REASONS FOR DECISION
A. INTRODUCTION
1The Applicant, Reynold Sooknanan, is the owner of a unit in Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 872 (“MTCC 872”). Jeannelle Keeling is also an owner of a unit in MTCC 872; her unit is located above the Applicant’s. The parties were previously involved in a case before the Tribunal (2023-00681N) which they resolved by Settlement Agreement (the “SA”) dated June 13, 2024, in Stage 2 – Mediation.
2Mr. Sooknanan filed this application because he believes that MTCC 872 had not complied with terms of the SA. Under s. 1.47(3) of the Condominium Act, 1998 (the “Act”), a party to a settlement agreement who believes that the other party has contravened the settlement agreement may make an application to the Tribunal, within six months after the alleged contravention, for an order to remedy the contravention.
3The relevant terms of the SA are:
The Corporation will hire a sound engineer within 30 days of the date of this agreement to conduct tests to identify the source of the noises. The Corporation shall provide the Applicant with advance notice of scheduled tests.
The Corporation shall take all reasonable steps recommended by the sound engineer to remediate the noise issues determined by the testing, subject to the Corporation’s maintenance and repair obligations pursuant to the Act and/or enshrined in its governing documents, at its own cost and expense, where any noise issues raised by the testing are deemed to be caused by common elements, exclusive use common elements.
The Corporation agrees to take any and all steps to ensure that other unit owners and tenants are complying with the Corporation’s constating documents and the Act, insofar as there are any noise issues raised by the testing which are attributable to other owners, tenants, or residents.
The Corporation agrees to uphold all of its duties and responsibilities described in the Act, and common law, and its constating documents in taking any and all reasonable steps to ensure that the noise issues in question are resolved.
The parties may apply to the CAT in the event that there is a breach of this Settlement Agreement and/or if the noise issue is not otherwise resolved by the steps taken pursuant to this Settlement Agreement.
4The Applicant alleges that MTCC 872 has not complied with terms 2, 3 and 4 of the SA. For the reasons set out below, I find that MTCC 872 has complied with the SA.
B. ANALYSIS
5A sound engineer was hired and prepared a report pursuant to the first term of the SA. The report by Thornton Tomasetti dated July 10, 2024 (the ‘Report”) was provided to the Applicant. The Applicant questions the test method and asserts that there are inaccuracies in the report; however, he was advised by me that this was not a hearing about the engineer’s test methods and the accuracy of that report.
6In order to determine whether there has been compliance with the SA terms, it is important to review the key findings and recommendations in the Report. The engineer conducted impact noise measurements between the Applicant’s unit and Ms. Keeling’s, referred to as Impact Insulation Class (IIC) measurements. Based on the engineer’s measurement results, the approximate IIC in the living areas was calculated to be 57. They noted that a recommended criterion is that bare floors (tested without a carpet) should have an IIC of 55. Therefore, the IIC in the units exceeded the recommendation by two points. The approximate average IIC between the kitchen areas of the two units was calculated to be 35 which is low; however, the Applicant indicated in submissions that the kitchen area was never a problem. The sound engineer noted that the addition of an acoustic underlayment in the living area and bedroom in Ms. Keeling’s suite was an indication that it was effective in increasing the IIC measurement (as compared to the kitchen area). They also noted that the chairs and other furniture in Ms. Keeling’s unit were equipped with felt padding as a noise control measure and stated that this significantly reduces the extent of structure borne noise transfer to the unit below. The sole recommendation in the report was for the installation of area rugs in areas of the living room with higher foot traffic and in the bedroom.
7In this case, the Applicant submitted a noise log for the period of June 2-30, 2024, that documented “all noises / sounds generated on floor” of Ms. Keeling’s unit and “echoed” in the Applicant’s unit. These were the noises heard by the Applicant which were the subject of the previous case which led to the SA. The noises include “knocking” noises in one of the bedrooms, the sound of dragging furniture, pounding and knocking on the living room floor, heavy or loud dropping, banging, occasionally music playing and on one occasion, loud noise in the shower - banging and water. The Applicant stated in this hearing that “all noises used to be heavy but it’s now regular to light at times” adding that the “rumbling” noise he used to hear has stopped, though the TV/audio noise is loud.
8The terms of the SA are broadly worded and are terms to which MTCC 872 (which was represented by counsel) agreed. However, a case brought under s. 1.47 of the Act is not an opportunity to re-litigate the issue (noise in this instance) of the prior case to which that SA relates. I must consider each of the terms allegedly contravened in context.
9Regarding the second term, the question is whether MTCC 872 has taken “all reasonable steps recommended by the sound engineer to remediate the noise issues determined by the testing …where any noise issues raised by the testing are deemed to be caused by common elements, exclusive use common elements”. As noted by the Applicant himself, the recommendation of the engineer was that area rugs be placed in certain areas. There was no determination that these were noises caused by the common elements and the only recommended action would require action by Ms. Keeling, who is not obliged to do anything pursuant to the terms of the SA. MTCC 872 itself cannot place area rugs in her unit nor can it direct her to do so. I find that there has not been a contravention of this term.
10Regarding the third term of the SA, this is not a question of whether the noises that the Applicant now complains of, (and I note that he has indicated that noise from the TV and loud music are a concern and contrary to MTCC 872’s noise rules, constitute a nuisance), but whether MTCC 872 has taken steps “to ensure that other unit owners and tenants are complying with the Corporation’s constating documents and the Act, insofar as there are any noise issues raised by the testing (my emphasis) which are attributable to other owners, tenants, or residents”. While this wording does highlight the fact that overly broad terms can lack the desired clarity and become problematic in terms of interpretation and enforcement, the noise issues addressed in the testing related to impact noise and the floor assembly and the latter was found to be sufficient. The noise issues raised by the testing did not relate to transmission of loud music which appears now to be a primary concern. I do not find that there is a contravention of this term.
11Regarding the fourth term, there is no evidence before me that MTCC 872 is not upholding its rights and responsibilities under the Act or its declaration, bylaws and rules and is not “taking any and all reasonable steps to ensure that the noise issues in question are resolved”. The noise issues in question are those addressed in the SA and investigated through the testing. The Applicant asserts that he hears noise and that it is disturbing; however, that does not, in and of itself, mean that MTCC 872 is not taking “all reasonable steps”. There is no evidence before me that the Applicant has made complaints to MTCC 872 since June 2024 and that MTCC 872 has failed to reasonably respond to any such complaints. What remains, flowing from the Report, is the recommendation, as noted above, that area rugs be installed. The Applicant asserts that the MTCC 872 is refusing to place those rugs; however, it has no authority to enter Ms. Keeling’s unit to do so, and, again, Ms. Keeling was not a party to any of the SA terms. I do not find that there is a contravention of this SA term.
12In making this decision that MTCC 872 has not contravened the SA terms, I am not making a finding as to whether the noise the Applicant is now hearing is unreasonable and may be a nuisance, annoyance or disruption. Given that this application is about whether there has been a contravention of terms of the SA pursuant to s. 1.47 of the Act, the issues for me to decide are narrow in scope. However, MTCC 872 has referred me to the decision in Kwok v. Man 2025, ONCAT 88 (“Kwok”) and I will make a comment about it as this may be helpful to the parties. In Kwok, the Tribunal accepted that the noises from the unit could be heard in the applicant’s unit and that the noise was disruptive to her, especially the noises that were sudden in an otherwise quiet environment, and noted that noises from normal activities of everyday living are generally not considered unreasonable. The Applicant here has stated that the noises that used to be heavy are regular to light at times, though the TV/audio noise is loud. So, while I have not found a contravention of the SA, any future complaints, for example, about loud music, would need to be investigated in compliance with MTCC 872’s obligations under sections 17 and 119 of the Act.
13In this case, the testing and its results and recommendations were the core of this SA. The parties could not have known what these would be. Settlement of disputes is strongly encouraged in matters before the Tribunal. Parties understandably want the issues in dispute to be fully resolved with their settlement agreement which is why clarity in the terms is paramount so that finality to the dispute is achieved; broadly worded terms can lead to ambiguity which will diminish the chances of a successful final resolution.
C. ORDER
14The Tribunal Orders that:
- This application is dismissed without costs.
Patricia McQuaid
Vice-Chair, Condominium Authority Tribunal
Released on: August 22, 2025