Can Motion-Activated Lights Create an Unreasonable Nuisance for Unit Owners?

Subsection 117(2) of the Condominium Act prohibits condominium corporations and unit owners alike from carrying on activities that create a nuisance, annoyance or disruption to individuals in a unit or the common elements. Read together with Section 26 of Regulation 48/01, a source of “light” may qualify as a nuisance, but only where it is “unreasonable”.

So, would it be unreasonable for a condominium corporation to install and maintain a motion-activated light in the hallway outside a unit if the owner is sometimes disturbed by this light?

The Condominium Authority Tribunal (CAT) considered just this question in its recent decision, Grimes, Courrier v. Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 864, and found that a motion-activated light was not unreasonable under the circumstances. In this case, two unit owners (the Applicants) claimed that new energy efficient lighting installed outside their unit door created a nuisance that unreasonably interfered with their use and enjoyment of their home. The motion-activated lights were designed to illuminate the building’s garbage room and stairwell doors only when activated (by motion). As a result, the Applicants were met with a bright light several times a day as they exited and entered their unit.

To determine whether the new motion lights were unreasonable, the CAT asked whether a reasonable owner of MTCC 864 would consider the motion-activated light in the corridor adjacent to the Applicants’ unit to be unreasonable. Importantly, the CAT stressed that the test for reasonableness is an objective one and not based on the subjective experience of a particular unit owner.

In reaching its decision that the motion-activated lights were not unreasonable, the CAT considered the following factors:

• The intensity of light
• How the light fits with other lighting
• Whether the motion activation is disruptive or abrupt
• The frequence with which the light shines in the Applicants’ hallway
• The circumstances surrounding the installation of the light

Here, the fact MTCC 864 installed the light to reduce energy costs and increase safety for residents weighed in favour of reasonableness. Moreover, the CAT found that MTCC 864 took reasonable steps to address the Applicants’ concerns by, for example, pointing the light more directly at the garbage chute and switching the lights to a softer intensity and warmer tone to fit with other lights in the corridor.

This case highlights that in nuisance matters, the CAT will consider all relevant circumstances to determine whether an activity is objectively reasonable. Condominium living seeks to balance the rights of individual unit owners with that of the condominium community as a whole. When a condominium corporation or unit owner alleges a nuisance, all parties should strive to take reasonable steps to assess and resolve any nuisance before taking legal action.

Stay tuned to Condo Law News to keep up to date on the latest developments on condominium law!