Do we really have to endure noise and the blocking of the sun by our neighbours?

One of the real advantages of living in the countryside rather than in a city or town is the absence of noise. But if you live in a community where the homes are close to one another, you will be bombarded with street noises and on occasion, you will be bombarded with noises coming from your next door neighbour.

That is what happened to Anne Langdon four years ago when moved into a rental home on a family-friendly, tree-lined street in the city of Peterborough, Ontario.  She believed and hoped that she would live in a quiet neighbourhood.  

At first, she tolerated the noise coming from the neighbour next to her whose son shot a basketball into the hoop attached to their garage. Many homes have a hoop attached to the garage so that the children can practice shooting a basketball into the hoop.

Unfortunately, Ms. Langdon’s bedroom window was close to the source of the noise when the ball slammed against the garage. Later, she found it quite disturbing when the boy eventually grew into a tall teenager and as such, would play with his basketball for 20 to 40 minutes at a time. She said that when the ball hit the garage, the sound had the irritating effect of an “echo-chamber.

She complained to her next door neighbours, the Elliotts. They sympathized with her and then they told her that their son, who they claimed is a promising basketball player, had the right to play basketball in their own driveway. However, to help dampen the sound and protect Ms. Langdon’s window from being broken, the Elliotts hired a handyman to build a moveable wooden panel to roll in front of her window when their teenager son would practice with his basketball.

Now that seemed to be a reasonable solution for both neighbours. However, Ms. Langdon complained that the panel was a deliberate move to block her natural sunlight. Quite frankly, I think such a complaint is frivolous if the boy was only playing with his basketball for 20 to 40 minutes and didn`t play with the basketball before eight in the morning.

Ms. Langdon claims the wooden panel was left in front of her window, weighed down by a cinderblock, for several months last year. Her neighbours have denied this. If in fact it had  remained in front of her window for several months, then she has a legitimate complaint.

I don`t know if she asked the boy`s parents to move the panel away from her window or if they agreed to do so but she couldn`t do it herself as she would be trespassing on their property.

She called her landlord, her city councillor and city officials but they told her that they couldn’t help her. She even called the fire department and police and they told her that nothing could be done to help her out of this unfortunate situation she was in.

Now, Ms. Langdon who is a writer who works from her home has asked the Ontario environmental commissioner to investigate her complaint.

The Environmental Commissioner of Ontario (ECO) is the province's independent environmental watchdog. Appointed by the Legislative Assembly, the ECO is tasked with monitoring and reporting on compliance with the Environmental Bill of Rights, and the government's resolve in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and in achieving greater energy conservation in Ontario.

She drew the public`s attention to her plight by sending a press release to the local media about what she called the “city’s first investigation under Ontario’s Environmental Bill of Rights related to unreasonable and excessive noise.

 

It is beyond my comprehension as to why she feels that she is entitled to the benefit of the Environmental Bill of Rights. Those rights apply to the protection and conservation of natural resources, including plant life, animal life and ecological systems. I have studied the Bill and there is no reference in it about noise pollution or blocking the sun from one’s house.  

If she wanted to stop the neighbour`s boy from playing with his basketball in the early hours of the morning or for hours on end, she would have a legitimate complaint about the noise it creates and could file her complaint with the city under its anti-noise law.

Section 691.2.1 of Peterborough`s anti-noise bylaw states in part that no person shall within the limits of Peterborough make or permit an unusual noise, or a noise likely to disturb the inhabitants thereof.

The wall of her house facing the side of her neighbour’s garage only has one window which is her bedroom window. Now you may ask, why would a basketball hitting a garage next to someone’s bedroom window be considered as disturbing noise?

We have all heard that old refrain; “Waiting for the second shoe to fall.” What it means is that intermittent noise is disturbing because it places you in suspense wondering when the next noisy sound will take place.

In 1959, I was living in an apartment building and my apartment was a number of stories up and the building bordered a schoolyard. A teenage boy began practicing pole vaulting beginning at six in the morning and he would let the pole fall on the concrete schoolyard. It woke me up and there was no way I could get back to sleep. I finally spoke with the school principal and he didn’t seem to be that concerned. I told him that if they boy wakes me up before seven in the morning again while pole vaulting, I would sue him (the principal), the school board and the boy’s parents in the small claims court and on top of that, I would file a complaint against him (the principal) personally with the city through its anti-noise bylaw. The boy stopped pole vaulting before seven in the morning.

It would seem to me that Ms. Langdon’s complaint with ECO relates to the sun being blocked from her bedroom window. As I said earlier, there is no reference in the aforementioned Bill of Rights with respect to blocking the sun from one’s house.

She could take her neighbour to the Superior Court and get an order prohibiting the neighbour’s son from playing with his basketball before seven in the morning and after seven in the evening and also from leaving the wooden panel in front of her bedroom window between those hours.  She could also sue her neighbours in small claims court for as much as $25.000. Apparently she hasn’t done any of those two things.

Now what was originally a quiet dispute between two neighbours has now transformed itself into a heated city-wide debate about children’s rights to play freely outdoors in a family-populated neighbourhood versus a private resident’s right to peace and quiet.

People are also wondering if Ms. Langdon is going too far in her fight against her next door neighbours who’ve lived in the neighbourhood for more than 30 years and whether a Ministry of the Environment investigation into the basketball noise complaint is an appropriate use of taxpayer dollars.

The local paper in This Week’s web site in its editorial said; “Rather than engaging more public officials into the fight, it’s time to let go and move on, literally, Regardless of how the spat started, eventually Ms. Langdon needs to find a quieter street and a fresh start. The sooner, the better.”

I find that editorial insulting and presumptuous. No one should have to move to escape unwanted noise and a neighbour’s negligence in not removing a panel that blocks the sun from the other neighbour’s bedroom. 

Anne Elliott, a nurse in Peterborough and mother of two girls and her teenage son, says that her family has experienced major distress since the middle of October, when Ms. Langdon publicized their battle between them.

The most recent twist came Friday, when the Elliotts received a demand letter from Ms. Langdon, saying they had 10 days to pay her $25,000 and stop the basketball playing or she would sue.

Ms. Langdon didn’t have the right to demand $25,000 without first getting a court order in her favour after and only after she could prove that her damages for pain and suffering justified such a sum being paid. Further, she didn’t have the right to demand that the boy stop playing with his basketball however she could demand that he not play with it between seven at night and seven in the morning.

According to Ms. Elliott, the letter cited possible long term health effects from the noise. She claimed that that there was a good chance she could develop cardiovascular disease because of the stress, and that repetitious noise from a basketball can cause mental health problems.

Noise health effects are the health consequences of elevated sound levels. Elevated workplace or other noise can cause hearing impairment, hypertension, ischemic heart disease, annoyance and sleep disturbance. Changes in the immune system and birth defects have been attributed to noise exposure. Unfortunately for Ms. Langdon, she cannot establish that the noise created by the basketball constitutes elevated noise so that complaint is unwarranted.

Aggravating things that go wrong in the day and those irritating things that go bump in the night thereby disrupting routines and interrupting sleep all have a cumulative effect on your brain, especially its ability to remember and learn. However, if she isn`t woken up by the basketball hitting the garage and can’t go to sleep in the evening because the boy is still playing with the basketball, she will have a hard time being successful going that route.

Ms. Langdon called the police only once on the now 17-year-old teen but his mother says police were called more frequently. Further, Ms. Elliott disputes Ms. Langdon`s claim that her son plays for 20-40 minute stretches at a time, saying he’s so busy playing competitive basketball elsewhere and mentoring young players that he’s rarely around. It all comes down to whose word is taken more seriously.

Ms. Elliott said that police told her son he could continue playing basketball. They were right. There is no bylaw in Peterborough prohibiting people from tossing a basketball into a hoop on a garage although one city is considering prohibiting that activity.  

Ms. Landon hopes that the city will creating a bylaw that addresses “deliberate blocking of daylight however right now, the City of Peterborough has no such bylaw.  

Ms. Langdon says her case contravenes Section 14 of the province’s Environmental Protection Act, which addresses “impairment of the quality of the natural environment for any use that can be made of it,” and “loss of enjoyment of normal use of property.”

Section 14. (1) states;  Subject to subsection (2) but despite any other provision of this Act or the regulations, a person shall not discharge a contaminant or cause or permit the discharge of a contaminant into the natural environment, if the discharge causes or may cause an adverse effect.

I don`t see how the blocking of sunlight comes under that section. The Ministry of the Environment would consider her case if the allegations were to show that the actions of her neighbour was likely to harm the environment or cause harm to the environment. The allegation of Ms. Langdon isn`t going to go anywhere if sun-blocking is the basis of her complaint.

However, Environmental law expert Stepan Wood professor at York University’s Osgoode law school said that, in theory, the definition is “broad enough to encompass the basketball playing neighbour, but using the EPA in this way would be like using a hammer to crack an egg Further, he said that “complaints about noise pollution have been found by the courts to violate Section 14 of the EPA but they almost always come from industry, like metal stamping factories. He also said that he thought it would be unlikely for a court to find that teenagers playing basketball in a residential neighbourhood constitutes noise pollution within the meaning of Section 14 of the EPA.

Obviously, some neighbours may be worried the investigation, which they call “frivolous,” could set a dangerous precedent, by preventing children from playing freely outside.

Quite frankly, I don`t think that they have any reason to be that concerned.

 I will keep an eye on this matter and inform my readers of the final outcome when the case is finally concluded.