When Odour Becomes Nuisance: CAT’s Approach to Hoarding and Maintenance
In Oxford Condominium Corporation No. 24 v. Post, 2025 ONCAT 192, the Condominium Authority Tribunal (“CAT”) found that persistent garbage odours from a hoarding unit constituted a nuisance and warranted structured relief to protect a neighboring owner.
The respondent had a history of hoarding that previously required his unit to be emptied and rebuilt. After he returned, an adjacent neighbour complained of a pervasive garbage smell infiltrating his unit for months, despite spending hundreds of dollars on air purifiers. Management later attended and observed a strong garbage odour on entry and items stacked to the ceiling, indicating renewed hoarding. The condominium corporation pursued a graduated response: letters, emails, calls, and four legal compliance letters, along with information about community support services. The respondent did not meaningfully engage, did not remedy the odour, and did not participate in mediation or the written hearing.
Relying on section 1.44 of the Condominium Act, 1998, the corporation alleged a breach of section 117(2), which prohibits activities that create or continue a nuisance, including by odour. The Condominium Authority Tribunal accepted evidence from the condominium manager and the neighbour and concluded that the accumulation of garbage had created an unreasonable, ongoing odour that materially interfered with the neighbour’s use and enjoyment of his unit.
The Tribunal linked this nuisance finding to the statutory duty to maintain the unit. It interpreted the obligation to “maintain” under the Act and the declaration as including a basic level of cleanliness such that unreasonable odours do not emanate into neighbouring units. The Tribunal also noted that the Act permits the corporation to perform necessary work (with the related costs to be charged back to the owner) where an owner fails to maintain within a reasonable time.
Given the persistence and recurrence of the odour problem, the Condominium Authority Tribunal granted a structured remedy. It directed the owner to remove garbage and other items causing odour and to clean the unit within 30 days so that odours no longer migrated to other units. If, after 30 days, an inspection on notice revealed that the unit remained in an unacceptable state and the odour persisted, the corporation was then authorized to hire a third‑party contractor to clear and clean the unit, with those costs added as common expenses payable by the owner, subject to fairness, reasonableness and notice safeguards. The Tribunal acknowledged that such orders are relatively rare but found them justified given the history, the duration of the odour, and the owner’s complete non‑engagement.
The corporation sought more than $7,400 in legal fees plus the Condominium Authority Tribunal filing fee, effectively asking for full indemnity. The Tribunal distinguished pre‑application enforcement costs from the costs of the proceeding (ie. “In-CAT” costs) and applied a proportionality lens. While it commended the corporation’s patient and sensitive approach, it emphasized that some enforcement expense is an ordinary incident of condominium governance. It ultimately awarded a reduced amount in compensation and costs, declining full indemnity as a remedy reserved for exceptional circumstances.
This decision illustrates that persistent odour migration from hoarding or garbage can satisfy the statutory nuisance threshold, that the duty to maintain a unit encompasses maintaining it in a condition that does not emit unreasonable odours, and that corporations which carefully document complaints and staged compliance efforts may obtain structured orders permitting entry, professional clean‑up, and chargebacks, tempered by a strong proportionality lens on both remedies and costs.
Stay tuned to Condo Law News to keep up to date on the latest developments on condominium law!
