Photographing on condominium property held to be a nuisance

In the case of Simcoe CC 120 v. Wilce, 2026 ONCAT 166 the condominium corporation alleged that an owner was causing an unreasonable nuisance in contravention of Section 117 (2) of the Condominium Act and certain provisions in the Corporation’s governing documents.

The evidence established that the owner had repeatedly photographed her neighbouring unit, its resident, and other residents and vehicles, stood outside the neighbouring unit observing it, peered through windows, and on occasion confronted the resident.

The owner maintained that her actions were justified because she believed harmful gases, odours, and chemicals were entering her unit from neighbouring premises and affecting her health.

The Tribunal accepted that the owner genuinely held those concerns but found that those concerns did not justify the frequency and nature of her conduct.

The Tribunal held that there was no violation of Section 117, but held that the owner had violated general nuisance provisions in the Corporation’s governing documents and ordered the owner to stop causing the nuisance – specifically to

a.        immediately cease taking photographs of (the neighbour’s) unit and any person residing or visiting there, including (the neighbour).

b.        not peer into the windows of (the neighbour’s) unit.

The Tribunal said:

“Based on the evidence provided, I find Section 117 (2) (a) is not relevant. This section of the Act specifically addresses unreasonable noise that is a nuisance, annoyance, or disruption. There are no allegations that Ms. Wilce is creating unreasonable noise contrary to this section of the Act.”

…

“While I accept that Ms. Wilce is genuinely concerned about her health and believes she has reason for her actions, those concerns and reasons do not, in the circumstances of this case, justify the pattern of conduct established by the evidence. For instance, when taken alone, taking photographs of someone from a public place is not necessarily interference or nuisance conduct, nor is standing outside another person’s unit looking at it however, the evidence in this case is that Ms. Wilce has been photographing Mr. McGregor, his unit, and other residents’ and their vehicles on a near weekly, if not more frequent, basis and has been regularly standing outside Ms. McGregor’s unit to observe him and peering into his unit on regular occasion. As a result, Mr. McGregor has ceased using his patio, has felt the need to invest in privacy screens and this pattern of conduct has made him anxious to come and go from his unit, as he fears being approached by Ms. Wilce or being photographed, which is not an unreasonable response in these circumstances. Even if I were to accept that Ms. Wilce’s purpose in taking photographs and the corresponding surveillance, was to document concerns relating to her complaints, the frequency and nature of the photographs exceed what is reasonably necessary for that purpose. I find that the evidence establishes that Mr. Wilce has been engaging in a pattern of conduct that has substantially interfered with Mr. McGregor enjoyment of his unit and is a nuisance breaching SCC 120s rules and provisions as cited earlier in this decision.”

The takeaway from this case is that recording of units and of other persons, on a condominium property, can sometimes constitute a nuisance.   I fully agree.  In my experience:  Except when reasonably necessary (and properly disclosed), homeowners generally do not wish to have their activities recorded while in their home, including on a condominium’s common elements.

I hasten to add that many condominium corporations pass Rules to prohibit or regulate such recordings.  In my view, such Rules are proper and enforceable.

One last note:  In keeping with Court decisions respecting collection of “enforcement costs”, the Tribunal held that the Corporation had improperly threatened to collect the Corporation’s enforcement costs by way of lien against the owner’s unit (and ordered the Corporation to reimburse certain amounts paid by the owner through that process). 

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