㽶Ƶֱ

Skip to content

Asbestos exposure and 㽶Ƶֱhorrendous㽶Ƶֱ jackhammer noise mean $30K award for B.C. tenant

Building㽶Ƶֱs owner challenged Residential Tenancy Branch decision in court and lost
32333502_web1_230331-VNE-jackhammer-award_1
A Victoria tenant will be compensated more than $30,000 due to a prolonged building renovation that included a 㽶Ƶֱloss of quiet enjoyment㽶Ƶֱ due to noise from a jackhammer and exposure to asbestos. (Pexels photo illustration)

A Victoria tenant will be compensated more than $30,000 due to a prolonged building renovation that included a 㽶Ƶֱloss of quiet enjoyment㽶Ƶֱ due to noise from a jackhammer and exposure to asbestos.

The owner of a 13-storey building at 435 Michigan St. in Victoria, IMH 415 & 435 Michigan Apartments Ltd., plus Devon Properties, had asked for a judicial review of a 2022 B.C. Residential Tenancy Branch decision to award the tenant $30,721.75. The money was awarded by the RTB for 㽶Ƶֱfor rental abatement and damages due to the Landlord㽶Ƶֱs lengthy and extensive renovation of the apartment building in issue.㽶Ƶֱ

The award included rent abatement for a 㽶Ƶֱloss of quiet enjoyment from jackhammering and other noise,㽶Ƶֱ plus $10,000 in aggravated damages for 㽶Ƶֱongoing health concerns from asbestos exposure during construction.㽶Ƶֱ

The tenant called the noise from the jackhammer, drilling and table-saws 㽶Ƶֱhorrendous㽶Ƶֱ as it continued until 8 p.m., six days a week, read the court decision.

The landlord took over the building in 2015 and performed renovations between 2016 and 2017.

㽶ƵֱThe renovations consisted of repairs and capital work to many of the common areas (corridors, lobby and entrance), unit renovations, security and elevator upgrades, painting (building envelope, balconies, windows and doors), and installation of energy-efficient systems and mechanical equipment,㽶Ƶֱ according to a B.C. Supreme Court decision.

㽶ƵֱThe Landlord does not challenge the awards for failure to maintain the premises in reasonable condition, loss of balcony use, or for clean-up, totalling approximately $11,500,㽶Ƶֱ said the decision, but challenged the rest of the award.

As for the asbestos exposure, the court decision said the tenant claimed that it was 㽶Ƶֱimpossible for tenants and workers to avoid dangerous exposure.㽶Ƶֱ

㽶Ƶֱ(The tenant) described the Building as loaded with contaminated airborne dust while it was wrapped in a construction 㽶Ƶֱshroud㽶Ƶֱ from July to December 2016,㽶Ƶֱ said the court decision. 㽶ƵֱAfter a fourth stop work order, on December 14, 2016, the asbestos levels were so high that, on January 24, 2107, the Landlord was forced to evacuate all tenants for six weeks of remediation and cleaning of the Building.㽶Ƶֱ

㽶ƵֱI now lay in bed at night considering the possibility that I may 㽶Ƶֱ have my quality of life rapidly decline and quickly end 㽶Ƶֱ,㽶Ƶֱ the tenant said to the RTB arbitrator, according to the court decision. 㽶ƵֱThere is no doubt my lungs are loaded with asbestos fibres and silica crystals, it㽶Ƶֱs not possible to have occupied this building in 2016 and avoided exposure, that is now clear㽶Ƶֱ. After exposure to asbestos or silica there is never an 㽶Ƶֱall clear㽶Ƶֱ diagnosis 㽶Ƶֱ I will now forever suffer a lingering fear that one day, prematurely, my lung health will rapidly decline as a result of the asbestos, lead and silica I㽶Ƶֱve been exposed to.㽶Ƶֱ

The landlord challenged the tenant㽶Ƶֱs claims and the RTB decision.

㽶ƵֱThe Landlord submits this award was patently unreasonable because it failed to identify what findings were relied on regarding jackhammering and concrete drilling. It also submits the arbitrator erroneously placed the onus on the Landlord to demonstrate mitigation of the construction noise, whereas the onus to mitigate is actually on (the tenant) who never raised his noise complaints during construction,㽶Ƶֱ said the court decision.

The court disagreed with the landlord.

㽶ƵֱIn my view, the landlord has not demonstrated anything approaching patent unreasonableness for this award. The award reasonably reflected the arbitrator㽶Ƶֱs findings about (the tenant㽶Ƶֱs) loss of quiet enjoyment due to the lengthy, severe construction noise he endured. The findings she made, and conclusions reached therefrom, were all available to her on the evidence,㽶Ƶֱ read the decision.

READ MORE:

Do you have a story tip? Email: chris.campbell@blackpress.ca.

Follow us on and and like us on



Chris Campbell

About the Author: Chris Campbell

I joined the Victoria News hub as an editor in 2023, bringing with me over 30 years of experience from community newspapers in Metro Vancouver and the Fraser Valley
Read more



(or

㽶Ƶֱ

) document.head.appendChild(flippScript); window.flippxp = window.flippxp || {run: []}; window.flippxp.run.push(function() { window.flippxp.registerSlot("#flipp-ux-slot-ssdaw212", "Black Press Media Standard", 1281409, [312035]); }); }