CONDOMINIUM AUTHORITY TRIBUNAL
DATE: June 3, 2026 CASE: 2025-00517N
Order under section 1.44 of the Condominium Act, 1998.
Member: Brian Cook, Member
The Applicant: Cheryl Stoneburgh, Self-Represented
The Respondent: York Condominium Corporation No. 266, Represented by Victor Yee, Counsel
Hearing: Written Online Hearing – November 13, 2025 to May 1, 2026
REASONS FOR DECISION
A. INTRODUCTION
1Cheryl Stoneburgh is a long-time owner and resident of a unit in York Condominium Corporation No. 266 (YCC 266). In this application, Ms. Stoneburgh says she has been subjected to unreasonable noise from neighbouring units and alleges that YCC 266 has failed to adequately identify the source of the noise or stop it from happening.
2For the reasons that follow, I find that YCC 266 has reasonably investigated Ms. Stoneburgh’s complaints but did not do so in an expeditious manner.
B. THE APPLICANT’S EXPERIENCE
3Ms. Stoneburgh has lived in her unit since 1999. Her parents and grandparents also lived in the building, so she has an extensive history. She says that she did not experience any problems with noise until about 2023.
4The building has a complicated design. Most of the units are two-storey and there are different layout configurations. A problem in this case has been trying to understand where the noise might be originating. The layout makes it hard to know which are the neighbouring units and which parts of those units are adjacent walls, ceilings and floors with Ms. Stoneburgh’s unit. The noise may also be coming from units that are not adjacent but may travel through the building’s structure.
5Ms. Stoneburgh has experienced different types of noise. One that she has reported most frequently is noise that seems to her to be related to someone doing carpentry work with hammering, sanding, and drilling. She sometimes hears what seems to be the sound of nails dropping on the floor. The noise often happens on weekends but also in the evening during the week. The noise usually does not last long but sometimes recurs frequently.
6Other noise that she experiences she associates with furniture being moved around without furniture pads.
C. INVESTIGATIONS AND COMPLAINTS
7YCC 266 has provided a record of 47 security reports concerning Ms. Stoneburgh’s noise complaints for the period from February 2023 to August 2025. Ms. Stoneburgh has also provided detailed information about her experience of the noise.
8On February 2, 2023, the date of the first security report, security confirmed the sound of “slight hammering” coming from unit B05. However, the occupant of that unit denied using a hammer. The noise stopped and was not further investigated.
9Ms. Stoneburgh says that she made a complaint to management about the noise in February 2023 that was not investigated, other than the inconclusive visit by security on February 2. She says that management did not respond to this until April 2023 and then nothing came of suggestions from management that the complaint would be investigated.
10The next complaint was on February 28, 2024, when security confirmed hearing a hammering noise, coming from Ms. Stoneburgh’s ceiling. Although it only lasted a few seconds, security reported hearing it “loud and clear”. This incident was not further investigated at the time.
11According to submissions from YCC 266, Management sent an email reminder about noise to 12 units above the Applicant on March 4, 2024. This document is not part of the record in this case.
12On the afternoon of March 14, 2024, security again confirmed hearing hammering noise while in Ms. Stoneburgh’s unit. Security noted that two units on the floor above were undergoing approved renovations and felt that the noise was probably coming from one of these.
13On June 11, 2024, security was present in Ms. Stoneburgh’s unit and confirmed hearing what “sounded like mild movement of furniture like a chair” on two occasions.
14On June 12, 2024, security confirmed noise that sounded like a “mild thud noise or shuffling of a chair”.
15According to Ms. Stoneburgh, in September 2024, she heard “continuous noise all day on Sunday September 22.” She met with security and six units were identified for investigation.
16On October 5, 2024, Ms. Stoneburgh complained of noise coming from a construction project on the clubhouse roof. Security spoke to the contractor about the noise, and it abated.
17On December 27, 2024, construction noise related to approved renovations in neighbouring units was confirmed.
18On March 4, 2025, noise was confirmed and found to be coming from a door installation project.
19On August 4, 2025, Ms. Stoneburgh complained of a drilling noise. Security found that an upstairs neighbour had been using a vacuum cleaner.
20On the other occasions documented in the security reports, security came to Ms. Stoneburgh’s unit, often within minutes of her calling to register a complaint but did not hear any unusual noises. On several of these occasions, security listened to recordings Ms. Stoneburgh had made of the noise when it was present and confirmed that the recordings were compatible with noise such as hammering or drilling.
21A notice dated August 2, 2024, was sent to all units. Documents provided by YCC 266 show that a draft was shared with Ms. Stoneburgh before it was sent and she offered some suggestions. However, in submissions she says she did not see the notice that was sent. The notice indicated multiple complaints had been received about noise such as “furniture dragging, nails dropping, hammering, sanding, and others… which “significantly disrupt the peace and comfort of other residents.” The notice asked everyone to be mindful of the following:
Furniture Movement: Please avoid dragging furniture across the floor. Instead, lift the items to move them or use furniture pads to minimize noise.
Construction Activities: If you need to carry out any repair or renovation work, please do so during the designated hours weekdays (9 AM to 5 PM), Saturday (9 AM to1 PM) and inform the Management so proper Notices can be sent out to the neighbours
General Noise: Be considerate of your noise levels, especially during early mornings, late evenings, and night hours.
Hobby Room: If residents are not aware we do provide a hobby room for residents to work on a do-it yourself projects that required hammering or drilling for example.
We understand that some noise is inevitable, but we encourage everyone to take these steps to reduce disturbances. Your cooperation is crucial in ensuring a peaceful living environment for all residents.
22Ms. Stoneburgh says that this notice did not end the noise.
23In September 2024, Ms. Stoneburgh met with the security supervisor to try to narrow down the units where the noise might be coming from. Six units were identified. Ms. Stoneburgh felt that unit B5 was the most likely unit because she understood that their living room was directly above hers. The identified units were not further investigated at that time.
24In October 2024, management proposed that sound monitoring equipment be used in Ms. Stoneburgh’s unit to try and isolate the noise she experienced. Ms. Stoneburgh did not agree with this suggestion because of privacy concerns.
25On November 5, 2024, management sent an email to Ms. Stoneburgh saying that after discussion with the Board, it was proposed that management come to her unit to “locate the walls that the risers are passing through your unit and to ask you to monitor the noises close to these walls.”
26Ms. Stoneburgh replied that she was declining the invitation of a meeting in her unit because she was “going in a different direction”.
27The new direction involved filing this application. According to the report of the Tribunal’s Stage 2 Mediator, during Mediation, the idea of sound monitoring was explored again but this did not proceed. The report indicated that it had been determined that the unit most directly above Ms. Stoneburgh’s unit was occupied by a couple who had a play space for occasional visits by grandchildren. It was noted that the unit had “thick carpeting” throughout except for this play area, but the play area was above that unit’s kitchen and not over Ms. Stoneburgh’s unit. Ms. Stoneburgh did not believe that the play area was the source of the noise.
28The case moved to Stage 3 – Tribunal Decision and was assigned to me in November 2025. The adjudication became prolonged because of continuing but ultimately unsuccessful efforts to try to identify the source of the noise complained of.
29Throughout the hearing, Ms. Stoneburgh confirmed that it is her belief that the cause of most of the noise is that someone in a unit near hers has a carpentry hobby. On a positive note, she indicated that the carpentry noises occur less often than they did in the past.
30A video conference call was held on December 18, 2025, where several ideas were canvassed. After the call, YCC 266 provided diagrams which show which units share common walls, floors, and ceilings with Ms. Stoneburgh’s unit. These were difficult to interpret, and a second video call was held on January 5, 2026. Mr. Brodie, the security supervisor was in attendance and helped review the diagrams.
31This discussion led Ms. Stoneburgh to suspect that there had been insufficient investigation about unit B6. It was agreed that Mr. Yee would facilitate information about this unit. In January 2026, Mr. Yee reported that B6 was purchased in 2016 and was renovated in 2019. The renovations included floor replacement which was installed in accordance with the requirements of the YCC 266 governing documents. Mr. Yee reported that he had received a message from the owner of B6 who advised that she had area rugs in her living and dining rooms and furniture pads under her furniture.
32Ms. Stoneburgh agreed that the owner of B6 had been cooperative but questioned why this unit had not been investigated earlier.
33Mr. Yee noted that there had been an inspection of nine units in proximity to Ms. Stoneburgh’s unit, including B6 in March 2025. It is not clear that the results of this inspection were shared with Ms. Stoneburgh at the time. Mr. Yee included a copy of the report during the hearing, but it was in a redacted form that made it impossible to understand. Mr. Yee expressed the concern that under section 55 of the Condominium Act, 1998 (the “Act”), Ms. Stoneburgh would not be entitled to access this document because it pertained to other units. I directed disclosure of an unredacted version of the document. I noted that this disclosure was not a request for records under section 55 of the Act, but rather a disclosure of necessary information directly relevant to the issues in the application.
34The inspection specifically looked for evidence of any hobby activity and specifically anything related to carpentry, and none were found. Most of the units had either the original flooring or engineered hardwood flooring. As Ms. Stoneburgh noted, the report did not indicate if the units had carpeting.
35In February 2026, I sent a message to the parties noting that “the primary issue in this case is Ms. Stoneburgh's allegation that the Board did not properly investigate her complaints of noise in a timely way. We have spent some time trying to determine the likely source of the noise but have not come up with any clear evidence about this.” I asked Ms. Stoneburgh to advise if she wanted to add any further evidence. She said she did not, so I then invited the parties to make final submissions. That process was delayed by various things including Ms. Stoneburgh’s absence for about a month, unrelated issues related to repair work needed in Ms. Stoneburgh’s unit, and Mr. Yee’s request to investigate issues raised in Ms. Stoneburgh’s submissions. The submission process was completed on May 1, 2026.
D. FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS
36Section 117(2) of the Act provides:
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…
37Under this provision, the noise complained of must be “unreasonable”. This recognizes that some degree of noise is inevitable in a condominium setting. Depending on the structure of the building, residents should expect to hear noise from other units. It is only “unreasonable noise” that is prohibited. There is no set formula for what constitutes unreasonable noise, but factors include how loud the noise is, the nature of the noise, when it occurs, and whether other residents in the building exposed to the same noise would agree that it is unreasonable. Noise that is related to normal activities of daily living are usually found to be not “unreasonable”.
38I have no reason to doubt that Ms. Stoneburgh has experienced the noises she has complained of. These consist of two general types of noise. The first is the noise she associates with furniture like chairs being moved, and, one occasion, floor vacuuming. The second type is the carpentry-construction noise.
39On the basis of the evidence before me, I cannot conclude that the noise associated with occasional moving of furniture or vacuuming is unreasonable noise. It is, rather, noise associated with normal living.
40The carpentry-construction noise is in two categories. The first is noise resulting from authorized renovation/repair work in other units and the common elements. This type of noise must be anticipated in a condominium. Without more verification of when this noise happened, its character, and volume, I cannot find that this type of noise is unreasonable.
41The second category is the mysterious carpentry noise, which is also the noise that Ms. Stoneburgh says has not been properly investigated.
42While there have sometimes been lengthy delays before management engaged with Ms. Stoneburgh’s complaints about this noise, it cannot be said that nothing was done. Security attended repeatedly, some minor noise complaints were verified, notices were issued, and neighbouring units were visited and inspected for evidence of carpentry hobbies. Despite this, the source of the mysterious noise has not been determined. Ms. Stoneburgh rejected the idea of an acoustic engineering study on the grounds of privacy concerns. She also rejected a proposal to determine if noise might be coming from a riser project.
43Considerable time was taken during the hearing to better understand the building’s layout and the possible source of the reported sounds. These did not add significantly to the information already determined and did not identify the source of the noise. Ms. Stoneburgh confirmed that she did not wish to present any further evidence about the noise issue and asked that I rule on her contention that YCC 266 has failed to properly investigate her complaints in a timely manner.
E. CONCLUSIONS
44To summarize, I find that Ms. Stoneburgh has not established that noise she associates with people moving furniture is unreasonable within the meaning of section 117(2) of the Act. I find that some of the carpentry-construction noise is related to authorized renovation/repair work and the evidence does not establish that this noise was unreasonable. I find that the mysterious carpentry-construction noise might well be unreasonable. I have accepted that Ms. Stoneburgh hears noises like hammering, nails dropping, and sawing that is not related to authorized construction or repairs. The noise is random and does not usually last long but may recur during day or evening. These noises have sometimes been verified by security.
45Unfortunately, it has not been possible to determine where these noises originate.
46Nevertheless, I find that YCC 266 has conducted reasonable investigations. These have included prompt responses by security, and visits to units in the vicinity of Ms. Stoneburgh’s unit. YCC 266 has also taken reasonable efforts to encourage whoever is making the noise to stop. I agree with Ms. Stoneburgh that these things could have been done more expeditiously. It is not clear that a more expeditious and timely investigation would have led to any better outcome.
F. ORDER
47The Tribunal Orders that:
- The application is dismissed.
Brian Cook
Member, Condominium Authority Tribunal
Released on: June 3, 2026