If Franz Kafka hadn’t died a century ago, one would think that he invented from scratch this incredible saga opposing La Tulipe to this real estate developer who chose to settle next to the theater longing for the tranquility of a lakeside.
But one could also suspect the Czech writer of having drafted the City of Montreal’s noise bylaw, a masterpiece of fuss in itself.
One thing is certain, it is high time to clarify and modernize the way noise is regulated in Montreal. Because right now, the craftsmen of the cultural scene are evolving in a regulatory vagueness that puts them at the mercy of the most unreasonable complaints.
For anyone fond of the absurd, the case of La Tulipe is worth summarizing. The building, built in 1913, has been home to theatre, variety shows and cinema for over a century. Before the pandemic, the theater presented music performances and dance parties.
In 2016, a real estate investor, Pierre-Yves Beaudoin, bought an adjoining building and built housing on the ground floor, in a former La Tulipe warehouse. The idea is so bad that it contravenes the Plateau-Mont-Royal planning regulations. For obvious reasons, it is prohibited to build new dwellings adjacent to a “liquoring establishment” or an “entertainment hall” when the premises are zoned commercial.
Except that the city officials forget to check their own regulations and grant the permit by mistake.
The owner moved into the premises and noticed, oh surprise, that La Tulipe generated noise. A long dispute ensued between the two parties.
At the end of May, the owner wins a partial battle. The Superior Court awarded him damages of $1,250 (he claimed $40,000) and ordered La Tulipe to undertake soundproofing work.
This is not the end of the story: the City is suing Mr. Beaudoin for his part for “illegal use” of his accommodation… even if it granted him a permit to build it.
The case, as we can see, is incredible. However, it has the merit of shining the spotlight on the fact that the noise regulations of the City is particularly screwed up. This is causing headaches not only for the owners of La Tulipe theatre, but also for many other theater operators.
Article 9 of the by-law stipulates that the “noise produced by sound devices, whether located inside a building, is “specifically prohibited when heard outside” or whether they are installed or used outdoors”.
The “noise of shouting, shouting, singing, altercations or imprecations and any other form of uproar” is also prohibited if it is heard from outside.
The wording may be appropriate for settling a neighbours’ squabble, but it’s extremely limiting for cultural life. Good luck operating a bar or a concert hall with spectators coming and going without any noise being perceptible from the outside…
The regulations have other sections that appear to contradict section 9, including an “ordinance” that sets specific decibel levels. The Supreme Court has already ruled that section 9 should not be taken literally, noting in passing that it “reveals ambiguities1 “.
The problem is that the police do not necessarily drag Supreme Court case law in their car trunk to interpret this overly complex regulation. And theater operators say they receive tickets under Section 9.
The result is that today, a single citizen can close or weaken a theater, even if it is operated under normal conditions. This is unacceptable.
Montreal recognizes the problem and is proposing a regulatory overhaul in its nightlife policy. So much the better, but things have to change.
The network of Alternative Music Scenes of Quebec and the organization Montreal 24/24 propose, for example, to adopt the “principle of agent of change”. The idea is simple: take into account what is already present when constructing a new building. A dwelling that would be installed in a vibrant artery, for example, would have to adapt to the existing environment. Same thing for a nightclub that would like to land in an inhabited area2.
It’s full of common sense.
The City of Montreal has released $1.4 million to help small independent performance halls better soundproof their walls. It’s not bad, but the thinking needs to go beyond the hammers and lead to a regulatory overhaul.
Montreal is fortunate to have an inhabited downtown. It is a wealth. But the right to peace of mind is not absolute everywhere. By muffling noise indiscriminately, one runs the risk of also muffling culture and what makes the metropolis vibrate.