Being reasonable is a fundamental aspect of condominium living, but it is not always easy to determine what it means to act reasonably within shared spaces. Recent legal decisions shed light on the challenges and uncertainties condo residents and board members face when grappling with this dilemma in their communities.

Across Ontario’s condo law, there are many examples of the importance of being “reasonable.” For instance, nuisances, annoyances or disturbances caused by noise, odour, smoke, vapour, light or vibration are prohibited if they are unreasonable. Judges, arbitrators and tribunal members ultimately decide on the matter, but how do they measure this? Take noise disturbance for example, which was front-and-centre in a few new cases.

In Kwok v. Man, Lo, (May 30, 2025), the Condominium Authority Tribunal (CAT) determined that noise from an upper unit was acceptable because the noise was caused by “ordinary activities of daily living.”

Once again, noise from an upper unit was found acceptable in Farinha v. White, (April 2024), where the CAT stated that the sounds were “more readily characterized as the sounds of everyday living in a household with young children.” The Tribunal went on to say that: “In a communal living environment like a condominium, a certain amount of noise, and perhaps even the potential for a moderate degree of annoyance, may be inevitable and must be tolerated.” The Tribunal also said, “This situation highlights that condominium living necessarily involves living in community with shared rights and responsibilities, and in this instance particularly, a show of empathy and consideration for each other’s life circumstances.”

On the other hand, in the case of Peel Condominium Corporation No. 312 v. Singh (September 14, 2023), the CAT held that running and thumping noises from children were considered unreasonable. The Tribunal noted that the sounds were “excessive and sustained” and “were not trivial.” Yet in McGugan v. Ritchie et al. (April 1, 2024), the CAT held that noise from a rear yard water feature was acceptable because the sound was natural and not very loud, and other residents would be unlikely to find it unreasonable.

This past March 2025, in Seif v. Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1511, the CAT decided that noise from a building’s exit door was acceptable. The Tribunal said: “What is heard on the video is a level of sound that is to be expected in the circumstances – residents using an exit door in the ordinary course of communal living. . .”

However, in 2023, the CAT said noise from a gym was unreasonable in Waterloo Standard Condominium Corporation No. 670. The condo corporation was ordered to take steps to resolve the nuisance, including completion of improvements to the flooring followed by sound transmission testing.

Shared living environments can be fraught with second-hand smoke. Last September, the CAT found in Kovalenko v. Romanino et al. that smoke from an outdoor porch was acceptable because smoking was permitted in the particular condominium and “some smoke and odour migrating through open windows and doors is to be expected and will need to be tolerated.”

Yet two months later in Kegel v. Merritt (November 18, 2024), the CAT decided that smoke escaping from the unit of a legacy smoker was causing an unreasonable nuisance because the smoker had failed to take reasonably available steps to stop the smoke migration.

More recently, in May 2025, the CAT said an owner was causing unreasonable nuisance by feeding birds from her balcony in Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 476 v. Smalldridge. The owner had ignored warnings and continued feeding pigeons, which caused a mess and damage to other units.

Lessons Learned

Considering the various outcomes of the above cases, there are a few principles that shine through.

The question of what is and is not reasonable is an objective standard. This means that reasonableness is determined from the perspective of a typically-prudent person dealing with a similar situation. As well, what is reasonable in a condominium is what one would normally expect in a community with similar structures and similar governing documents.

As such, it can be tricky for people who are directly involved in a matter to determine what is reasonable. It is natural for someone who is directly involved, or is directly affected, to view a matter subjectively. In many cases, it can therefore be wise to obtain input from someone who is independent and more likely to know what is reasonable in a given situation.

Section 37 (3) of the Condominium Act, 1998 also confirms that input from an independent expert can help condominium directors avoid liability. Guidance from several different sources – such as various board members and from the manager – can also help. Numerous perspectives increase the chances of an objective conclusion. To achieve this, fulsome discussion at the board level can be hugely beneficial.

Another key factor to bear in mind is the importance of communal living, which means there can be differing points of view from various members of the community. In order to be reasonable, we need to try to see things from the other person’s perspective.

Open minds and open hearts can help find what is reasonable. It is not always easy to determine, but in many cases, input from multiple and/or independent sources may help reach this goal.

James Davidson and Nancy Houle are partners at Davidson Houle Allen LLP Condominium Law. dhacondolaw.ca