The noise logs were introduced as evidence in the British Columbia ground noise dispute
Stratum wants a homeowner to change their flooring to carpet due to numerous noise complaints; however, the owner says the carpet aggravates his allergies.
A downstairs neighbor’s three-year-old noise reports were presented to the British Columbia Civil Resolution Court in a dispute over a condominium board demanding that the owner of the floor installs carpet.
Partly based on this evidence, the court found that the stratum was entitled to demand that the owner of the floor, Ahmed Shafey, remove its hard floor.
“I find the diapers reasonably believed that the noise…was caused or increased by the hard floor,” said court member Sherelle Goodwin.
Strata said it was authorized to demand the change under its statutes and based it on noise complaints from Strata below Shafey.
“He says that Mr. Shafey should have known about the noise complaints before he bought his flat, based on the minutes of the strata council meeting,” Goodwin’s March 28 ruling said.
The strata had demanded that he change the floor of his unit to carpet.
In April 2005, strata allowed the previous owner to install a floating floor. Shafey purchased the unit with a hard floor in March 2021. In May, Shafey was subject to noise complaints.
Shafey said the request is unfair because the strata previously allowed the installation of flooring, did not give him the opportunity to explore alternatives and the carpeting aggravates his allergies.
Shafey asked the court for an order for Strata to stop requiring him to change his floors.
The court ruling notes that the previous owner was fined after noise complaints from the downstairs neighbour. The stratum decided to request a carpet change and had told the previous owner.
“The Strata have decided to grant Mr Shafey a grace period before fining him and to enforce his previous decision requiring that [the strata lot owner] replace its flooring with carpet,” Goodwin said.
She said that while she accepts that the carpet may be detrimental to Shafey’s allergies, she found that Shafey “failed to prove that removing his hard floor would be oppressive, painful or harsh”.