Read the account in full
By-law, PDF, 87 pages (the Niagara-on-the-Lake
account begins on page 8)
What the rest of the by-law contains
The case at a glance
- Who
- One neighbouring resident brought a private prosecution against the Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake and the Niagara-on-the-Lake Pickleball Club Inc.
- What
- Both were convicted under the Town's own noise by-law on 15 June 2022.
- Result
- A $1,000 fine each, and two years' probation against any further breach involving pickleball at the Virgil park. The Town kept the courts closed for the two years.
- Then
- The courts reopened in 2024 with acoustic panels. In February 2026 council kept them closed for the whole 2026 season.
- Why it matters
- A municipality needs to know what its own noise rule permits, and how it will assess a court near homes, before a resident takes the question to a judge.
Watch: the case in two minutes
Read the transcript
A pickleball court. A neighbouring home. And a question that ended up in court: when does the sound of play become a breach of a town’s noise by-law?
In Niagara-on-the-Lake, a nearby resident brought a private prosecution against both the Town and the local pickleball club. On June 15, 2022, both were convicted.
The Town had tried a windscreen and shorter playing hours. The court found that the noise still breached the by-law. Each defendant received a one-thousand-dollar fine and a two-year probation order concerning play at the Virgil courts.
One observation from the decision stays with me. The Town could have written a noise rule that was “objective and quantifiable.” In other words, a rule people could measure and plan around.
The Town later amended its by-law, and the courts reopened in June 2024. The story has continued since then. In 2026, the Town decided to close those courts for that outdoor season while it considered another location.
That is why I have been working on a model pickleball noise by-law. Players need places to play. Neighbours need peace in their homes. Municipalities need rules they can use before a dispute reaches a courtroom.
You can read the case, the sources, and the proposed approach at QuietStandard.ca.
What happened, in order
| When | What |
|---|---|
| 2020 | Play at Centennial Sports Park in Virgil that later became the subject of the charges. |
| By April 2022 | The outdoor courts are closed. |
| 15 June 2022 | The Ontario Court of Justice at Welland convicts the Town and the club. Each is fined $1,000 and placed on two years' probation. |
| 20 June 2022 | Council passes an amendment exempting approved sports and recreation on Town-owned property from the noise by-law between 7 a.m. and 11 p.m. |
| 2024 | The probation period ends on 15 June. The courts reopen later that month or after, with acoustic panels costing about $23,000. |
| February 2026 | Council directs staff to keep the Virgil courts closed for the rest of 2026 and to find players another outdoor court. |
What it means for other municipalities
1. The municipality itself can be the defendant
In this case the Town sat in the defendant's chair. A private individual can lay an information under the Provincial Offences Act, and here a resident did so against the Town that owned the courts, without waiting for anyone to enforce the by-law on her behalf.
2. One household was enough in this case
There was no petition and no neighbourhood association behind the prosecution. The design lesson for a municipality: a policy that only acts once several households complain would not have prevented this case.
3. The rule itself was the weak point
The by-law prohibited sound or vibration likely to disturb the quiet, peace, rest, enjoyment, comfort or convenience of the town's inhabitants. It named no level. The justice of the peace observed:
"It was open to the town to enact a noise bylaw that was objective and quantifiable, not perfect, but within reason."
The remark was an observation. The court did not find that any particular number would have prevented the prosecution. A properly developed numeric limit gives a designer, an operator, a neighbour and an enforcement officer the same reference point. This case shows how hard it is to manage a court with nothing but a disturbance test.
4. Mitigation came up short twice
The Town had installed a windscreen and reduced playing hours. On the evidence in this case, those steps did not prevent a finding of breach. When the courts reopened in 2024, acoustic panels were added. By 2026 a councillor said the Town had "tried everything we could to mitigate the noise and mitigate the issues and we're just unsuccessful in doing that."
5. The exemption did not settle it
The June 2022 amendment removes approved recreation on Town property during set hours from the by-law's ordinary prohibition. It does not set a measurable pickleball noise limit. Four years later the same courts were closed again, and Town staff reported general consensus that a court may be best located "a few hundred metres from a nearby residential area."
How the model by-law responds
- A numeric limit in Part III, in place of a test of whether sound is likely to disturb.
- Specified barriers in Part VI, with heights and performance set out, rather than a general instruction to mitigate.
- Setbacks by court count and ground type in Schedule A, completed by a licensed practitioner, so that siting is decided before a court is built. Setback distances compared.
- A single complainant is admitted in section 9.2 where the setback is short enough that a breach is plausible.
- A managed transition for existing courts in section 9.1, with a fixed end date so the transition cannot become a permanent exemption.
One limit is stated plainly in the document itself. The transition protects an existing court against the new numeric limit only. Until a municipality also revisits its general noise by-law, an existing court remains as exposed to a private prosecution as it was before.
Sources
The convictions. Ontario Court of Justice, Welland, reasons for judgment delivered 15 June 2022, Informations 21-0507 and 21-0508. A copy of the reasons has been reviewed. A certified court file and the separate sentencing order have not been obtained.
The fines, probation and the justice of the peace's remarks. Thorold News, "Niagara-on-the-Lake ordered to shut down pickleball courts", and CBC News, "Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake and local pickleball club fined $1,000 for violating noise bylaw".
The June 2022 exemption. The Town's published copy of the amending by-law, passed 20 June 2022. The Town's records number it 4588B-21, while the council agenda for that meeting lists it as 4588B-22.
The 2024 reopening. Town media release, which announced a planned reopening on 17 June 2024. Local reporting later described that opening as delayed.
The 2026 closure. Town council update, 25 February 2026; NiagaraNow, "Virgil's pickleball courts to stay closed this year"; and NiagaraNow, "NOTL to repay pickleball club after courts close, future still uncertain", 22 April 2026.