Ontarians are protected from second-hand smoke at work and in public places, yet many condo owners are regularly exposed to unwanted second-hand smoke migrating into their homes from neighbouring units. The intrusion of a toxic substance is more than an annoyance or inconvenience. It is a serious health hazard, and is especially severe for people with chronic illnesses and conditions. As a result, more and more residents are demanding that their condo corporation take action to address this problem.
Surveys have found that roughly one-third of people living in multi-unit dwellings experience second-hand smoke infiltrating their homes on a regular basis. Further, people rarely complain to management--not because they are not bothered by it, but because they think there is nothing that can be done. However, condominium corporations have a duty to address complaints of second-hand smoke if there is evidence that the smoke is “unreasonably” disturbing other residents.
Unfortunately, when condo corporations receive complaints about second-hand smoke migrating between neighbouring units, they are often reluctant to take action because the behaviour of smoking is not specifically addressed in the declaration, bylaws or rules. But they would be wrong to assume that they have no authority or responsibility to address these complaints--especially if there are issues concerning maintenance of the common elements.
Further, it is important for condominium corporations to know there could be a liability issue if they refuse to act on legitimate nuisance complaints. Refusing to act when informed of second-hand smoke that is causing a nuisance could lead to unnecessary lawsuits.
While there are no black and white answers for addressing this issue, this section provides a range of strategies that condominium corporations or unit owners can take to deal with the nuisance of migrating second-hand smoke in condo complexes.
Steps that condo owners can take:
If you are a condo owner suffering from second-hand smoke exposure in your home, you may want to consider collecting information about the source, extent, frequency and impact of the problem before approaching your neighbour or condominium board of directors. Taking an informal approach at the beginning may result in a satisfactory resolution to the problem, and may be less expensive and less time consuming than initiating more formal measures, such as mediation, arbitration or lawsuits.
Document the source and extent of the problem
Consider using this sample resident log to track your efforts to address the problem.
Document the health impacts on you and/or your family
Document interference with the normal use and enjoyment of your home
Collect supporting evidence
Consider taking steps to mitigate the problem yourself before taking more formal steps. This could include such actions as sealing up cracks and gaps, blocking vents or fans, negotiating with your neighbour who smokes and talking to your property manager about ventilation in the building. Here are some steps you might consider:
a. Block or reduce the smoke
Visit the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation website for useful tips on Solving Odour Transfer Problems in Your Apartment.
Visit the US Indoor Environmental Engineering website for information on how to reduce second-hand exposure in multi-unit dwellings.
Note: It should be clarified that structural repairs or improving ventilation systems may reduce some of the smoke infiltrating your home, but will likely not totally eliminate the problem. The Centre for Energy and Environment in Minneapolis conducted an extensive study of air flow in multi-unit dwellings in 2004 and identified a number of measures to reduce smoke transfer between units. The findings show that while about one-half of the units treated had a reduction in contaminants of greater than 50%, close to one-third of the units treated had no reduction of contaminants at all.
b. Investigate the ventilation
It is important to note that while improved ventilation can remove the odour of tobacco smoke and the source of eye and throat irritation, no ventilation system is capable of addressing the health effects of exposure to the many toxic chemicals in second-hand smoke. There is no known safe level of exposure.
The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation states that most buildings built since the mid-1960s have corridor ventilation systems in place. These systems are designed to deliver outside air into corridors to maintain positive pressure. Air is continuously pushed under doors, thereby preventing odours from escaping individual units and leaking into the corridors and neighbouring units. Older buildings rely on air coming in through cracks and gaps for ventilation. In addition, many buildings have exhaust systems to ventilate the bathrooms and kitchens, with fans either right in individual units or located centrally elsewhere in the building.
c. Negotiate solutions
If you feel comfortable, consider talking to your neighbour who smokes. He or she might not realize that the smoke is a problem for you.
Try to focus on concrete solutions such as asking the neighbour to smoke outside, to smoke in another area, to close doors or windows, or to seal cracks and gaps in their unit too. Seek support from other residents in the building. They might be experiencing second-hand smoke intrusions as well and may be willing to talk to the neighbour who smokes with you.
Before you do anything else, it is highly recommended that you read the Condominium Handbook for Directors, Managers, Owners and Purchasers (sixth edition). This resource is written for a lay audience and is very useful for understanding how your condominium works and what you need to do to effect change. You can order it online from the Canadian Condominium Institute for $15 plus shipping and handling.
If your board of directors is not supportive, you can try to call an owners' meeting:
Note: Keep all records of correspondence with the condominium corporation or property manager concerning this issue. If the corporation fails to take action to address this issue, you will need evidence that they knew about the problem, were warned that it was a significant interference, and refused to take steps to address the problem.
b. Request condominium bylaw/rule enforcement procedures be initiated
Virtually all condominium corporations have rules or bylaws that prohibit behaviour that creates a nuisance or hazard to another person. This can include smoking, regardless of whether the condominium corporation has a formal no-smoking rule or bylaw in place. (See our legal opinion section for more information on the challenges of going this route.)
If a negotiated solution cannot be reached with the neighbour who smokes, and there is evidence of significant interference caused by the smoke, the corporation has the authority to notify the smoking resident that they are in violation of the rules or bylaws, and must cease the behaviour that is causing the nuisance. Condominium corporations have a duty to enforce their rules or bylaws, including enacting enforcement proceedings up to and including seeking relief in court if necessary.
Before going any further, you might want to consider becoming a member of the Ontario Association of Condominium Owners for guidance and support.
If your condo corporation refuses to act, or you are not satisfied with the solutions taken, here are a few last resort measures that can be taken. Before initiating formal procedures, including initiating a lawsuit, it is recommended that you seek legal advice.
a. Initiate dispute resolution procedures
However, this issue is not black and white, and it is recommended that you seek legal advice if faced with applying to court to enforce a nuisance violation caused by smoking. (See legal opinion).
b. Apply to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario is a quasi-judicial body that exists to resolve discrimination claims filed under the Ontario Human Rights Code on such matters as employment, housing and services. The Code provides protection from discrimination on the basis of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family status, being a recipient of public assistance and record of offences.
In a housing context, sections 2 (1) and 17 (2) of the Human Rights Code, which deal with disability and accommodation, are of interest concerning smoking and no-smoking policies:
"Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to the occupancy of accommodation, without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, family status, disability or the receipt of public assistance."
and
"No tribunal or court shall find a person incapable unless it is satisfied that the needs of the person cannot be accommodated without undue hardship on the person responsible for accommodating those needs, considering the cost, outside sources of funding, if any, and health and safety requirements, if any."
If you have a disabling health condition such as asthma, allergies, COPD or anything else that is being made worse by your involuntary exposure to second-hand smoke, you could file an application on the basis that the condominium corporation has not taken reasonable steps to prevent second-hand smoke from infiltrating your unit. You could argue that the corporation has a responsibility to act in order to accommodate your disability.
We are not currently aware of any such cases in Ontario, although in British Columbia we know of a couple of cases where tenants have filed human rights applications against social housing providers for failure to eliminate second-hand smoke or to provide smoke-free housing. One of the cases, which involved the Greater Vancouver Housing Authority, was settled before it went to a full hearing, and no further details are available. However, the case is important as the adjudicator denied the landlord's application to have the tenant's application dismissed, and determined that the tenant's application had merit which deserved a full hearing.
The second case involved thirteen tenants filing a discrimination complaint against Kiwanis Park Place in Crescent Beach for being exposed to other tenants' second-hand smoke. More...
Be aware that if you choose to file a human rights application, it can be a long and time-consuming journey. You can apply for legal representation, but there is no guarantee that you will be provided with free representation. Go to legal resources for a list of organizations that may assist you if you are considering this route.
Download an Applicant's Guide to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.
Steps that condominium corporations can take:
When boards of directors receive complaints about second-hand smoke causing a significant interference to residents in a condo complex, they are often reluctant to take action because the behaviour of smoking is not specifically addressed in the declaration, bylaws or rules.
Because of this, they assume the behaviour is not prohibited. However, they would be wrong to assume that they have no authority or responsibility. Most condominium corporation rules include a general restriction prohibiting a unit owner from creating any "nuisance" which disturbs the comfort or quiet enjoyment of the property by other owners.
The challenge for board of directors when dealing with second-hand smoke is to determine whether the complaint is considered a legitimate nuisance. Nuisance has a particular meaning in law--it is an unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of property. The second-hand smoke from a neighbour who stays in her unit all day long and chain smokes will arguably create more of a nuisance than a neighbour who throws a couple of parties a year and invites guests who smoke.
In a 1988 Supreme Court of Ontario case (Hotel Corp. v. E.B. Eddy Forest Products Ltd.) the court recognized that "although the test of nuisance is generally whether the defendant's use of its land interfered with the beneficial use and enjoyment of the plaintiff's lands and whether that interference was unreasonable, there is authority for the proposition that where actual physical damage occurs, the interference is unreasonable." To prove nuisance it is not necessary to prove the intent, negligence or fault of the person causing the nusiance. In our opinion, actual physical damage could involve second-hand smoke odour permeating soft furnishings, laminates, etc.
Obtain information concerning the nature and extent of the problem. The more information you can collect, the easier it will be to resolve the problem. See the "do the groundwork" section above for more information.
If the smoke cannot be eliminated or reduced to a satisfactory level, work with the affected parties to attempt a negotiated solution.
Perhaps the smoke travels more easily from certain rooms, and the resident who smokes might consider smoking where the second-hand smoke is least likely to affect others. Portable fans and air purifiers will not address the health hazards of exposure to second-hand smoke, but might buy some time while better solutions are explored.
Also consider creating a designated smoking area outside on the building property, with a cover if necessary. The board might also consider offering incentives such as free nicotine replacement therapy to help the residents who smokes deal with times when smoking outside is not possible.
If the board determines that the second-hand smoke is indeed causing a nuisance for residents in the complex and a compromised solution cannot be reached, the corporation has a duty to take all reasonable steps to enforce its declaration, bylaws and rules.
See our enforcement section for more information.