Court File and Parties

Court File No.: CV-25-00003739-0000 Date: November 12, 2025 Superior Court of Justice - Ontario

Re: 2701382 Ontario Inc., in its capacity as general partner of and on behalf of Promenade Park Towers Limited Partnership, Applicant

And: Mehmet Salih Dasdemir and Mahmut Kir, Respondents

Before: J. Di Luca J.

Counsel:

• Rida Malik, Counsel for the Applicant
• Mehmet Dasdemir, Self-Represented Respondent

Heard: October 29, 2025

Endorsement

Background

[1] The applicant is a condominium developer that developed a condominium project located at 50 Upper Mall Way. The condominium is currently in the interim occupancy phase, and as such, there is no corporation or board of directors. Promenade Park Towers Limited Partnership ("Promenade") is a declarant within the meaning of the Condominium Act, 1998, and therefore currently responsible for managing the condominium. The applicant, who is a general partner of the declarant, brings this application on behalf of the declarant.

[2] The respondents own a residential unit at the condominium. It is unclear whether they continue to reside in the unit or have leased it to tenants, who may be other family members.

[3] The issue in this application is the excessive noise caused by the occupants of the respondents' unit.

The Noise Complaints and Attempts to Address the Issue

[4] Since May 2025, the applicant has received numerous complaints from other unit owners regarding the loud, disruptive, and unreasonable noise emanating from the respondents' unit at all hours. The noise consists largely of loud music and musical instruments.

[5] On-site condominium staff have made multiple visits to the unit to provide verbal warnings. On at least twelve occasions, staff have sent notices, emails and compliance letters. On seven of these occasions, the respondents were issued a formal Rules Infraction Notice. Staff have offered to permit the occupants to use a theatre room as an alternative location. They have warned that continued noise will result in the involvement of legal counsel.

[6] As part of the application record, the applicant has filed video clips taken outside the unit on or around October 5, 2025, as well as a clip taken around August 2025. These audio clips manifestly demonstrate the noise problem relating to the unit.

[7] Despite all the verbal warnings, written notices and the commencement of this application, the noise continues unabated.

The Nature of the Application

[8] The applicant seeks an order under s. 134(1) of the Condominium Act, 1998, declaring that the respondents have breached ss. 117(2) and 119(4) of the Act and an order directing the respondents to cease and desist causing, creating or permitting noise that interferes with the enjoyment of the property by other condominium owners.

[9] Mr. Dasdemir attended the application and made submissions. [1] As best as I can understand, Mr. Dasdemir maintains that the noise issue relates to tenants who are residing in the unit. He explains that the tenants will be moving out on December 1, 2025. He also explains that he has been busy with his wedding and has not been able to attend to the issues raised in this application.

[10] In reply, the applicant indicates that it has never been given notice that the unit is occupied by tenants and has reason to believe the "tenants" are family members who are staying at the unit.

Analysis and Findings

[11] Section 117(2) of the Condominium Act, 1998, directs that no person shall carry on an activity that results in the creation or continuance of any unreasonable noise that is a nuisance, annoyance, or disruption.

[12] Section 119(4) of the Act prescribes that an occupier of a proposed unit shall comply with the Act as well as the condominium's proposed declaration, by-laws and rules. Section 119(4) also requires that the declarant, Promenade, take reasonable steps to ensure that an occupier of a proposed unit complies with the Act and the relevant condominium's declaration, by-laws and rules.

[13] Rule 8 of Schedule XI of the proposed Condominium Rules prohibits noise by any instrument or other device, or otherwise, which may be calculated to disturb the comfort of other owners. In response to an issue that appears to have been raised by the respondents with condominium staff, I note that the Rule is not connected with a specific decibel level that must be measured by staff at the condominium.

[14] Based on the evidence before the court, there is no issue that the noise levels violate the Rules and also violate section 117(2) of the Condominium Act, 1998. I accept the evidence that the noise levels resulted in many complaints from other occupants. The noise levels revealed in the recordings manifestly establish that excessive noise is emanating from the unit. The noise would obviously interfere with other occupants' enjoyment of their own units. As well, the noise issues continued unabated, despite multiple verbal and written warnings, which included efforts aimed at arriving at a reasonable accommodation.

[15] Based on the record, it is clear that the occupants of the unit are undeterred in doing what they want to do, which is play music loudly whenever they want.

[16] The applicant is entitled to the orders it seeks.

Costs

[17] The applicant seeks full indemnity costs and notes that costs recovery is not only permitted by the Condominium Act, 1998, but also contractually by the Condominium Rules. The applicant also notes that the respondents were placed on written notice regarding the potential costs consequences of failing to address the noise complaints.

[18] The amount claimed at full indemnity rates is approximately $11,430 all inclusive. On a partial indemnity basis, the amount is approximately $6,977.

[19] Section 134(5) of the Condominium Act, 1998 provides that if a condominium corporation obtains a compliance order that includes a cost component, the condominium can charge the actual costs incurred by the corporation to the common expenses for the unit.

[20] While some courts have viewed this provision as supporting full indemnity costs awards, there is a distinction between the costs that are awarded by the court as between the parties and the actual costs incurred by the condominium as a result of a condominium owner's conduct, see Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corp. No. 1385 v. Skyline Executive Properties Inc., at paras. 45 and 49.

[21] Section 134(5) of the Act does not derogate from the court's obligation to determine the reasonable award of costs between the parties, see TSCC No. 1446 v. Weinstein, 2021 ONSC 3526, at para. 9. Where the court awards costs on a scale lower than full indemnity, it remains open to the corporation to seek full indemnification through the common expense process referenced in s.134(5).

[22] That said, I also appreciate the general principle that the "innocent" condominium occupants should not bear the costs of a legal proceeding necessitated by the conduct of occupants who decide to repeatedly violate the Rules to the detriment of those living in the condominium.

[23] When I consider the principles that inform costs decisions, including the principles of reasonableness and proportionality, I find that a costs order of $7,500 is appropriate in this case. This is higher than the partial indemnity rate and reflects the fact that the respondents were repeatedly urged to moderate their behaviour in order to avoid the necessity of this application.

[24] Order to go accordingly.

J. Di Luca J.

Date: November 12, 2025

Footnote

[1] When the application was initially called for hearing, counsel for the applicant was not present. Eventually, when counsel did not attend, Mr. Dasdemir was told that he could leave as the opposing side had not attended and the application would be dismissed. As it turns out, counsel for the applicant had been provided with incorrect log in coordinates for the zoom hearing. At the request of the court, counsel contacted Mr. Dasdemir, who logged back in again. He was advised that the earlier comments were in error as counsel, through no fault of her own, had attended the incorrect zoom hearing. The court then heard submissions from both parties.