Todd Busch

The plaintiff, a condominium resident, sought statutory and tort-based injunctive and declaratory relief against the defendant, an underground venue operating in his building.

The plaintiff alleged the venue was operating as an unlicensed nightclub, causing severe noise and vibrations constituting a nuisance.

The court found that the defendant was indeed operating as an "entertainment establishment/nightclub" without the proper license, based on its functional activities (e.g., providing dance facilities, minimal seating, ancillary food sales) despite being licensed as an "eating or drinking establishment." The court granted a declaration to this effect and issued both a statutory injunction requiring the defendant to cease operations in contravention of its licensing status, and an interim/interlocutory injunction based in tort, prohibiting the emission of sound audible beyond the lot limit between 10:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m.

The appellant appealed the municipality's approval of a zoning by-law amendment permitting a commercial dog kennel on the neighbouring property.

The core issue was whether the noise from the kennel would adversely impact the enjoyment of the appellant's property.

The Tribunal preferred the applicants' expert noise evidence, finding that proposed mitigation measures implemented through site plan control would adequately address noise concerns.

The Tribunal concluded the amendment was consistent with provincial policies and conformed to the official plans, dismissing the appeal.

The plaintiff sublessee brought an action against the defendant sublessor and its real estate broker, alleging they fraudulently concealed a latent defect regarding excessive noise from idling trains at the adjacent Union Station.

The defendants brought motions for summary judgment to dismiss the action.

The court granted the motions, finding that the train noise was a patent defect, not a latent one, and there was no evidence of a conspiracy to conceal it.

Furthermore, the plaintiff had acknowledged the proximity to the train station and agreed to an exculpatory clause in the lease that shielded the defendants from liability for train noise.

The applicant, a penthouse unit owner, applied to the Condominium Authority Tribunal alleging that unreasonable noise from the mechanical room above his unit caused a nuisance.

The respondent condominium corporation had spent approximately $40,000 on engineering investigations and repairs to address the noise.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that the functioning of the mechanical room is not an 'activity' within the meaning of section 117(2) of the Condominium Act, 1998, and that the complaint fundamentally related to the corporation's duty to maintain and repair the common elements, which falls outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.