ÎÚÑ»´«Ã½

Skip to content
Join our Newsletter

Complaining ÎÚÑ»´«Ã½ woman 'tracked' neighbour with video, audio recordings

A woman sought $5,000 from a neighbour she claimed was noisy but instead had to pay him $50.
files
A ÎÚÑ»´«Ã½ woman who sought $5,000 in noise damages against a neighbour must instead pay the man $50 for her behaviour. She had more than 300 complaints, according to an August Civil Resolution Tribunal decision.

A woman who sought $5,000 in a noise complaint has instead been ordered to pay that neighbour $50 for her behaviour.

That was ÎÚÑ»´«Ã½ Civil Resolution Tribunal member Megan Stewart’s Aug. 27 decision in the case where Linda Woo sued downstairs neighbour Lorenzo Bruno.

Woo claimed Bruno was liable for negligence and nuisance for making unreasonable noise in his strata lot that affected her sleep, health and work.

Woo claimed $5,000 in damages for lost business revenue, lost productivity and medical expenses. She included in this amount damages for loss of enjoyment of life, injury to dignity and respect, and pain and suffering.

However, Bruno denied Woo’s claims, which he said were frivolous and vexatious.

He said Woo has harassed him with her complaints to the strata, calls to police, banging on the ceiling, and tracking of his movements with video and audio recordings that he says invaded his privacy.

Bruno counterclaimed for $5,000 in nuisance damages.

Stewart said Bruno moved into the strata lot above Woo in July 2022.

“Since then, Ms. Woo says she has experienced near-daily unreasonable noise coming from Mr. Bruno’s strata lot, including running appliances during quiet hours, entertaining guests, stomping, dragging furniture, dropping objects on the internal and patio floors, slamming cupboards and other kitchen contact noises, a motorized exercise bike, and flooring creaks, knocks, and pops,” Stewart said.

Woo said she made numerous complaints to the strata about the noise, and also contacted the police.

Bruno denied making unreasonable noise, apart from on one occasion when he used his washing machine during quiet hours shortly after he moved in.

“He acknowledges that Ms. Woo may hear some noises, but he disputes that they are unreasonable, and that they necessarily come from his strata lot,” Stewart said.

Bruno claimed Woo’s constant complaints to the strata and the police amount to harassment. He said her admitted ceiling-banging and cupboard-slamming were a nuisance and entitled him to compensation.

Stewart said Woo submitted “a substantial number of audio and video recordings that she says are of noise Mr. Bruno made mostly at night.” Woo provided the strata with many, if not all, of these recordings in support of her more than 300 complaints.

After weighing all the evidence, Woo had not proven Bruno made unreasonable noise that interfered with the use and enjoyment of her strata lot, Stewart said. “I find the one occasion on which Mr. Bruno admitted using his washing machine during quiet hours insufficient to constitute a nuisance." 

“Living in a strata building involves some degree of give and take among neighbours when it comes to noise and other potential nuisances,” Stewart wrote.

Stewart said Woo admitted to “poking the ceiling” and slamming cupboard doors.

“I find Mr. Bruno is entitled to $50 for Ms. Woo’s unreasonable ceiling-tapping and cupboard-slamming,” the tribunal member ruled. “I order Ms. Woo to pay Mr. Bruno $50 in nuisance damages.”