Bass dismissed: Retired B.C. couple sell house, launch legal fight over neighbour's music
A retired B.C. couple couldn’t handle the loud bass coming from their neighbour’s property, so they sold their house before starting a legal fight at the Civil Resolution Tribunal.
According to the civil dispute decision, the applicants, LM and RM, sought $5,000 in damages for “nuisance, verbal and physical abuse, pain and suffering, and legal costs.”
The respondents, LG and GG, admitted to the tribunal that they played music for around 2.5 hours every other day while exercising, but denied that it warranted being labelled a nuisance. They told the tribunal that the municipality they live in investigated the complaints and found that no bylaws were being violated.
LG and GG also filed a counterclaim, suggesting that the applicants’ conduct related to their noise issues caused undue stress, anxiety and mental anguish. They also claimed $5,000 in damages, telling the tribunal that they “wasted” their money on soundproofing their gym, along with other expenses.
The applicants wanted their names anonymized, but the respondents denied the request, according to the decision.
In response, the tribunal member said, “I find the circumstances and the evidence are not unique or particularly sensitive. All parties are adults, and there is no evidence of impaired capacity.”
Concerning the noise issue, it began in January 2024 after the respondents set up a gym 10.5 feet from the applicants’ home. Between January 2024 and September 2024, when the applicants moved away, LG would work out every other day for around two to 2.5 hours in the middle of the day, less frequently in the early evening.
“They could hear the thumping of the music’s bass inside their house and on their outdoor patio. They could not hear the actual music, voices, or lyrics. They say that no matter what room of their house they were in, they could not escape the noise and vibrations. They provided many videos with audible bass. I note that most of the videos were taken on their outdoor patio rather than inside,” the decision states.
The applicants first complained on Jan. 30 and Jan. 31, and LG said she’d take care of it, but the applicants could still hear it. On Jan. 31, the retired B.C. couple tried knocking, but no one answered. Then, they began making bylaw complaints.
On Feb. 7, a bylaw officer visited the respondents’ home, which angered LG and GG, because their dog was sick. GG went over to the couple’s home, confronting RM, asking why they didn’t complain directly. Then, LG yelled at LM while LM was seated on her patio.
The respondents admitted that it wasn’t their “finest moment,” admitting to using profanities, which the tribunal described as “offensive” and “needlessly aggressive.”
While the retired couple claimed that the respondents threatened them, the tribunal refuted that claim because the next day, the applicants invited the respondents over to listen to the noise from their home.
Both parties reconciled “to some extent,” and the respondents turned the volume down to a level the applicants deemed acceptable.
However, on Feb. 10, the applicants claimed the volume was raised to a level they didn’t agree to.
One bylaw officer found that the volume was acceptable from inside the couple’s home, but not from the patio. The bylaw officer told the respondents that they could be fined if the volume continued at that level. The respondents turned the volume down, and it seemed okay. Over the following two months, however, the applicants made more complaints, alleging the volume had been turned up.
Bylaw officers did not find that it was the case. The respondents made all sorts of adjustments to try to accommodate the B.C. couple, and the bylaw officer officially closed the file in May 2024 without issuing any violation fines.
“They ultimately sold their house to escape the situation. So, I accept that the interference was non-trivial,” the tribunal said. The tribunal concluded that “an ordinary person” would find a way to develop a routine to work around the music. It also found that the respondents’ use of their home was reasonable.
The tribunal found the noise did not constitute a nuisance and dismissed the retired couple’s claim for damages. The tribunal also dismissed the respondents’ counterclaim, and no damages were awarded.