Subedi v. Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2264, 2025 ONCAT 134

CONDOMINIUM AUTHORITY TRIBUNAL

DATE: August 13, 2025 CASE: 2025-00456N Citation: Subedi v. Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2264, 2025 ONCAT 134

Order under section 1.41 of the Condominium Act, 1998

Member: Patricia McQuaid, Vice-Chair

The Applicant: Kamana Subedi, Self-Represented

The Respondent: Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2264

Submission Dates: July 16, 2025 to July 23, 2025

DISMISSAL ORDER

1Kamana Subedi (the “Applicant”) submitted an application to the Condominium Authority Tribunal (“CAT”) on June 25, 2025. For the reasons set out below, this application is dismissed under Rule 19.1 of the CAT’s Rules of Practice.

2The Applicant is the owner of a unit in Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2264 (“TSCC 2264”) which has been named as the Respondent in this case. The Applicant’s unit is occupied by a tenant.

3The Applicant alleges that TSCC 2264 is carrying on an activity that causes a nuisance, annoyance or disruption; specifically, that the ongoing operation of the building’s mechanical systems are causing unreasonable noise and vibration. Given this description of the alleged activity, the Tribunal identified a possible jurisdictional issue and sent a Notice of Jurisdictional Issue (the “Notice”) to which the Applicant has responded. The Respondent also received the Notice. I have carefully considered the Applicant’s submissions, and as noted above, am dismissing the application.

4The Applicant has brought this application pursuant to s. 117 (2) of the Condominium Act, 1998 (the “Act”) which states:

No person shall carry on an activity or permit an activity to be carried on in a unit, the common elements or the assets, if any, of the corporation if the activity results in the creation of or continuation of,

(a) any unreasonable noise that is a nuisance, annoyance or disruption to an individual in a unit, the common elements or the assets, if any, of the corporation; or

(b) any other prescribed nuisance, annoyance or disruption to an individual in a unit, the common elements or the assets, if any, of the corporation.

One of the prescribed nuisances, as per s. 26 of Ontario Regulation 48/01 (“O. Reg. 48/01”) is unreasonable vibration.

5The Applicant submits that TSCC 2264 is the “person” as required by s. 117 (2) and that the “activity” is the “ongoing operation of the building’s mechanical systems, including heating and cooling equipment, fans, pumps, compressors, and fluid circulation systems”. The Applicant notes that these components are located in the common elements and are used to support building-wide functions such as climate control and ventilation. Further, the Applicant states that these systems transmit mechanical noise and vibration into the unit through vertical risers that pass through the walls of the unit.

6The Tribunal’s jurisprudence is clear: for a case to fall within s. 117 (2) of the Act, the threshold issue is that there must be a person carrying on or permitting an activity. Here, TSCC 2264, which, for the purpose of this section, may be a legal “person”, operates, as required, a system for climate control and ventilation. There is no “activity” per se, but rather a mechanical system serving the whole of the building that operates on mechanized controls; there is no action required by TSCC 2264 – the system operates on an ongoing basis as part of the building’s infrastructure. Its operation does not require “action” by TSCC 2264.

7The facts as presented by the Applicant, are similar to those in the case of Brady v. Peel Condominium Corporation No. 947, 2023 ONCAT 8, (“Brady”) where the operation of the building’s plumbing system was causing noise which Ms. Brady experienced as annoying and disruptive. As stated in paragraph 15 of that decision:

… What the evidence does highlight is that the noise complained of may result from a construction, maintenance, or repair problem, but this is not an issue which is captured by the wording of s. 117(2) of the Act, though it may relate to the corporation’s obligations under s. 89 of the Act.

8Where regular and usual operation of a building’s mechanical systems results in noise and vibration (assuming it to be unreasonable), the cause of the unreasonable noise cannot be attributed to an activity (nor its permission) but relates in some way to the condition of the property in which it occurs. Conditions, or here, the very existence and operation of a mechanical system, (as opposed to activities) that give rise to nuisances, annoyances, or disruptions, are not the subject matter of s. 117 (2) of the Act. This is an over-extension of the intended scope of the term “activity” in s. 117 (2) of the Act.

9I am dismissing this application because the issue complained of does not fall within the parameters of s. 117 (2) of the Act and therefore is not within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. It appears, based on the Applicant’s submissions, that the Applicant has taken steps to address the noise and vibration experienced in the unit, but these have been to no avail. If there is a structural or repair and maintenance issue as per the Act and TSCC 2264’s declaration, recourse for the Applicant must be pursued elsewhere.

ORDER

10The Tribunal orders that the application be dismissed.

Patricia McQuaid

Vice-Chair, Condominium Authority Tribunal