LAW
Piano lessons hit sour note with neighbours
April 5, 2008
Gerry Hyman
SPECIAL TO THE STAR
Q: Is a unit owner entitled to give piano lessons in her residential unit if sound transmission is annoying to her neighbours?
A: Declarations in residential condominiums nearly always provide that the units are to be used for residential purposes only, thus prohibiting business use. Many people in the computer age carry out various business activities from their units. Provided that there is no activity that threatens safety or security, increases the corporation's costs or interferes with other occupants, any attempt at prevention would be unthinkable if not impossible. Sound transmission from piano lessons that unreasonably interferes with other unit occupants is a breach of the prohibition of business activity that warrants enforcement. It is also a breach of a declaration or rule that prohibits activity constituting a nuisance or unreasonably interfering with other residents.
The board should insist that the piano teacher take steps such as placing pads under the piano, covering the sound box, moving the piano to another location in the unit or restricting the hours of use.
If steps are not taken or if they prove insufficient, the board should proceed to court for a compliance order prohibiting use of the piano in contravention of the declaration.
Q: My unit has been rented for over two years to a tenant with a cat and was previously rented to a tenant who had three cats. I have never received a complaint about the animals but have now received a letter from the board requiring removal of my tenant's cat. No reason was given. Our rules permit pets but require removal of any pet found by the board in its discretion to be a nuisance. Must my tenant remove the cat? Isn't my tenant protected by Ontario tenant law that permits tenants to have pets?
A: Landlords under the Tenant Protection Act cannot prohibit pets. The condominium corporation is not the landlord and a declaration provision banning pets would be valid.
Rules, unlike declarations, must be reasonable and the courts have held that an absolute pet ban is not reasonable. A rule enabling the board to require removal of a pet that constitutes a nuisance, however, is enforceable. Notwithstanding the reference to nuisance being determined in the board's discretion, there must be evidence of nuisance upon which the board exercised its discretion. In the absence of such evidence, the board's removal requirement is not valid.
Q: A number of adult children of owners in our townhouse complex have had significant others move in and park their vehicles in visitors' parking. Subsequent to my written complaint to the property manager, I received a nasty, personal, lengthy letter from one of the board members. The manager then advised me that the visitors' parking matter was raised at a board meeting and the board decided to do nothing because I was the only person to complain, although the manager claimed he had advised the board of the problem on several occasions. He said the board member wrote the letter on her own initiative and was entitled to do so because of freedom of speech. Is that correct? Isn't the board obligated to enforce the rules in regard to visitors' parking?
A: The board member should not have written to the reader unless authorized to do so by resolution of the board. In no event should a nasty letter have been sent.
The board is obligated to enforce the rules and must do so notwithstanding that only one owner has complained.
Send questions to gerryhyman@bellnet.ca or fax to his attention at 416-925-8492.
Toronto Star