When Noise Complaints Fall Flat: Key Lessons from Pilgrim v. Emberley for Condo Managers

By: Nasrudin Mumin

Noise disputes may be common in condo communities, but a recent Condominium Authority Tribunal (“CAT”) decision demonstrate just how quickly a complaint can unravel for a unit owner when there is no objective evidence to confirm the existence of noise.

The CAT case Pilgrim v. Emberley, 2026 ONCAT 28 offers a clear reminder of what managers, boards, and residents must do when noise becomes a point of conflict. This case is a textbook example of how the evidence can make or break a CAT case, and result in significant cost consequences. Shibley Righton’s Nasrudin Mumin was legal counsel for the successful intervenor, Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 1355 (“MTCC 1355”).

A Noise Complaint Without Proof of Noise

The applicant, a condominium resident, alleged that the unit above hers owned by the respondent Michael Emberley was creating excessive noise including “late night disturbances,”. The applicant described the noise as “running a vacuum cleaner over my head 10 hours a day.”

The CAT determined that the applicant provided no objective evidence within the last two years (the CAT’s limitation period) to support her noise complaints. Specifically, the applicant failed to record the noise, keep a noise log, and contact management at the time of the alleged noise disturbances.

A Condominium’s Noise Protocol Matters

The CAT also determined that MTCC 1355 had a clear noise‑reporting protocol in place. The Corporation’s noise-reporting protocol expected residents to contact management while the noise was occurring, so the noise could be verified. The CAT emphasized that the Corporation’s noise-reporting protocol was reasonable and well‑communicated to the applicant.

For condominium corporations, this CAT decisions reinforces the importance of conducting the following to address a resident’s noise complaints:

• Ensure residents understand the need for timely reporting of noise (e.g., while the noise is occurring); and,
• Keep records of all noise complaint raised by residents, especially noise complaints investigated by a condominium corporation’s staff and contractors.

Credible Evidence is Crucial to Refute an Applicant’s Noise Claim

The respondent’s evidence was found by the CAT to be credible. The respondent’s testimony in this CAT case demonstrated that he had a long history in the building and had previously made several accommodations to the applicant to address her noise complaints (e.g., installing floor mats, replacing furniture, and adjusting work routines).

The respondent’s credible evidence also included a neighbour’s testimony. The neighbour shared a wall with the respondent for approximately 11 years, and he testified that he had never experienced any unreasonable noise from the respondent. This credible testimony from the respondent contrasted sharply with the lack of evidence from the applicant.

Outcome: Application Dismissed and Costs Awarded Against Applicant

The CAT dismissed the application entirely. But the bigger message for residents and condominium corporations is the cost award the CAT ordered against the applicant. The CAT awarded costs in the amount of $3,500 to the respondent, and $2,000 to MTCC 1355. The CAT, which typically does not award costs to a successful party, issued this costs award because the applicant had little evidence to support her noise complaints, and innocent unit owners should not be required to pay the full legal costs MTCC 1355 incurred to defend this CAT application.

Key Takeaways

1. Evidence is Everything

Encourage residents to document noise issues in the form of logs including timestamps, recordings (e.g., video and audio), and reporting the noise complaints to condominium corporation’s while the noise is occurring.

2. Enforce Noise Reporting Protocol

A clear, consistent noise protocol and investigation process protects both the condominium corporation and residents. If a condominium corporation requires advice on what type of noise protocol to implement, we recommend retaining a condominium lawyer to provide advice on the matter.

3. Communicate Noise Reporting Expectations to Residents Early

Residents must understand that subjective noise complaints alone rarely succeed at the CAT and does not require a condominium corporation to take enforcement measures.

4. Keep Detailed Records

A documentation of noise complaints, what measures were taken to investigate the noise, and what noise, if any, was heard during an investigation is crucial if a dispute arises.

5. Costs Could be Recovered for Baseless Claims

This CAT case shows that condominium corporations can successfully obtain cost awards when dragged into baseless disputes from residents.

Noise complaints will always be part of condominium living. This CAT case demonstrates that when condominium corporations have strong noise-reporting procedures, and residents fail to follow them, the noise-reporting procedures can be a strong defence against an applicant’s noise claim.