On September 23, 2024, the Quebec Court of Appeal granted the application for a permanent injunction by Mr. Pierre-Yves Beaudoin (the “Plaintiff“), owner of a commercial and residential building adjacent to the La Tulipe cabaret, against the owner of the said cabaret and the cabaret production agency (collectively, “La Tulipe1“).
In doing so, the Honourable Stéphane Sansfaçon, writing for the Court of Appeal, partially reversed the trial judgment in this case2, and ordered La Tulipe to, among other things, (i) cease the emission of audible noise from the sound equipment of the establishment inside the Plaintiff’s building and on its terrace, and (ii) take all appropriate measures to ensure that the noise from the sound equipment of the establishment is no longer audible inside the neighboring building and on the terrace.
As a reminder, the dispute between the parties concerned the noise emitted by La Tulipe into the building where the Plaintiff lives, and more specifically, the sounds emitted by the amplification devices used by the cabaret several times a week. The building where the cabaret activities take place and the Plaintiff’s building are separated only by a common wall, which prevents the sounds emitted by La Tulipe into the Plaintiff’s building from being completely cut off.
In this case, the Règlement sur le bruit à l’égard du territoire du Plateau-Mont-Royal3 (the “By-law“), and more specifically the relationship between sections 8 and 9 thereof, is at the heart of the dispute.
As a reminder, under section 8 of the By-Law, disturbing noise becomes prohibited if it reaches a sound pressure level higher than the maximum standard noise level, set by ordinance, in respect of the inhabited place affected by the emission4.
For its part, section 9 specifically prohibits any noise produced by sound devices, when it is heard outdoors or in a room other than the one from which it originates, regardless of its purpose, whether the said sound devices are located inside a building or whether they are installed or used outdoors5.
At trial, the Superior Court ordered La Tulipe, among other things, to comply with its commitment to carry out soundproofing work. According to the expert report upheld by the trial judge, the effect of this soundproofing work would be to reduce the level of sound emissions from La Tulipe, so that they would be low enough to comply with the municipal regulations relating to the permitted sound pressure levels (section 8 of the By-law), without being reduced entirely in the Plaintiff’s building (section 9 of the By-law). In doing so, the trial judge excluded from his analysis the fact that background noise could remain barely, or slightly audible in the Plaintiff’s building despite this soundproofing work, and consequently, that this work would not necessarily have the effect of bringing La Tulipe’s activities into compliance with section 9 of the By-law.
In its decision, the Court of Appeal concluded that sections 8 and 9 of the By-law were independent of each other. In its reasons, the Honourable Sansfaçon argued that a violation of section 9 of the By-law occurs when the noise is heard from outdoors or in a room other than the one from which it originates, without regard to section 8, which limits the level of sound pressure that can be achieved. The offence under section 9 of the By-law is governed by an objective standard, and this standard occurs whenever there is noise – even if it is barely or slightly audible. The Court of Appeal also indicated that the duty of tolerance between neighbours, prescribed by the Civil Code of Québec, cannot be invoked against conduct that directly contravenes such a regulatory standard.
The Court of Appeal noted that there was no reason to prohibit La Tulipe’s activities, as they were not illegal, but that La Tulipe must, at the very least, comply with the By-law. The fact of carrying out soundproofing work – as ordered by the Superior Court – cannot in itself guarantee that no noise will be audible in the Plaintiff’s building. In its view, it is therefore appropriate to confine itself to ordering that La Tulipe complies with Article 9 of the By-law.
Following this decision and the publicity of the decision, the Plateau Mont-Royal borough adopted, on October 7, By-law (2024-15) amending the Règlement (2024-15) modifiant le Règlement sur le bruit à l’égard du territoire du Plateau-Mont-Royal in order to exempt bars, restaurants, craft brewers, craft establishments and performance halls from certain noise-related constraints imposed by the By-law – including constraints imposed Section 9 – and thus avoid a similar situation6. The Plateau-Mont-Royal borough also intends to table a new version of its noise by-law in January 2025. It will be interesting to see the impact that this Court of Appeal decision will have on municipal noise regulations, and on the cohabitation between residential and commercial buildings.
1. Beaudoin c. Cabaret Music-Hall inc.2024 QCCA 1237.
2. Beaudoin v. Cabaret Music-Hall inc, 2023 QCCS 1660.
3. R.R.V.M., c. B-3.
4. Supra, note 1, par. 14.
5. Art. 9 al. 1.
6. La Presse Closing of La Tulipe: Montreal to modify its noise regulations, September 25, 2024.
