Child's noise and arguments found not excessive

In a decision made late this summer, Administrative Judge Serge Adam of the Régie du logement refused the request of two former tenants alleging that the noise from the unit above them greatly upset their “peaceable enjoyment of the premises.” The tenants were seeking retroactive compensation of $100 per month from September 2016 to July 2017, plus $500 in damages.

The facts

The parties were connected through a lease from July 2016 to June 2017. In September 2016, the tenants sent a formal notice to the owner demanding that the noise situation in the unit above them be resolved. In the letter, they invoked the owner’s obligation to provide for the tenants’ peaceable enjoyment of the premises.

At the hearing, the tenants testified to their so-called problems. First, they said the child above them made “intolerable” noise while “constantly” playing hockey and “all kinds of games.” They could also hear arguments and thudding footsteps. The tenants moved out in June 2017. The owner argued that he was not responsible and that the tenants were intolerant of any noise at all.  

To support his defense, the owner had a former tenant, the sister of one of the upstairs tenants who used to live there herself, testify that the downstairs tenants were the reason she moved out. The current tenants of the upper unit explained that they had been berated by the downstairs tenants since the day they arrived due to the noise they made when moving in. They acknowledged making significant noise occasionally, but claim to have spoken to their son and resolved their arguments quickly.

The ruling

At the outset, Administrative Judge Adam cited a provision from the Civil Code of Québec on neighbors’ obligation to tolerate the typical inconveniences of the neighbourhood, which applies to rental neighbors as well. After analyzing various precedents and authors, the judge referred to the case-law stating essentially that since tolerance levels of individuals vary greatly, the court cannot base its assessment of evidence on subjective and personal factors, and must focus rather on objective and conclusive criteria.

In this case, the administrative judge found the tenants had not convinced the Régie that the noise was sufficiently repetitious, consistent, continuous, persistent and unreasonable to justify their request. Their allegations were exaggerated. It is not at all illegal for a child to play games and run inside, or to raise your voice from time to time, as long as it is not excessive.

Further, respect and good faith in light of the situation and the use of the premises mean that tenants should accept the typical inconveniences of apartment living and cannot expect the same level of freedom as in a single-family dwelling.