Note: This article first appeared in Spacing Magazine, Issue 67. It has been reproduced here with permission.

When did Toronto become noisy? One indication might come from the reports of Toronto historic newspapers, which were commenting on the apparent noisiness of the city by the 1890s. The wording used by the Toronto Daily Star, the Globe, and the Toronto World was striking and uniform. They reported on “Anti-Noise Crusades” against “The Noise Nuisance.” And from an early stage, the matter was presented as being more than just an annoyance — it was an issue of public health.  In 1894, the Toronto World complained about Toronto Railway Company streetcars, which “must have a serious effect on the nerves”.

In 1910, anti-noise proponents gained a new ally in the City’s Health Department.  Dr. Charles Hastings, the new Medical Officer of Health, identified “the question of offensive noises” as being a matter of public health. It was the first time the connection between auditory pollution and wellbeing was made official in Toronto.

The Globe was elated, as now its “ineffective protests against unnecessary and hideous noises” would be heard. In early November, a Globe representative walked the streets of Toronto in the morning and observed several sources of commotion while interviewing citizens and businessmen. His findings identified factory sirens, railway nuisances, and streetcars as problems for Hastings to act on.

Another issue Hastings was asked to investigate: milk delivery in the morning. Dissenters to the status quo advocated for afternoon deliveries to avoid the rattle of the wagons during sleeping hours. But Dr. Hastings rejected the switch to midday milk, because he prioritised another health issue — clean milk. More than noise nuisances, pasteurised milk became an enduring part of Hastings’ legacy. It was personal to him, too – his young daughter had died from consuming contaminated milk nearly a decade prior. The lack of proper refrigeration made leaving milk sitting for several hours for afternoon deliveries a non-starter.

In his pursuit of noise reduction, Dr. Hastings instead began with another auditory irritant: the crowing of roosters in the morning. In 1912, Hastings proposed a by-law to banish the animal from the city, with the noted exception of breeders’ roosters. The Mail and Empire asked – perhaps derisively – how the top doctor prioritised bird noises over “whistles, bells, honking automobiles, and steam hammers.” Its cheeky answer? “The roosters make so much noise that the doctor can’t hear himself crow over the improvement in the public health since he took over the Health Department.”

The Globe noted the proposed ban would face opposition from citizens, “not only on the score of the danger to roosters, but because it contemplates charging a fee of a dollar for every domestic animal kept within city limits.” In 1919 and 1926, citizens still wrote to newspapers complaining about roosters in the city, indicating that the Health Department had not been very successful. A 1938 by-law finally prohibited noises by “any animal or bird,” such as a crowing rooster or barking dog, “which disturbs the peace, quiet, comfort or repose of any individual in the neighbourhood.”

In 1916, Hastings inaugurated an “anti-noise” campaign. The targets were motorists who wielded a heavy hand in sounding their horns, as well as anyone who made noises that “are not necessary for purposes of carrying on trade and commerce.” The doctor also professed that he could put an end to “unnecessary noises in the city” if he was given the power to do so. In response, Toronto Mayor Tommy Church brought in a resolution at the same meeting enabling proceedings against those who make noises. The Mayor’s resolution was endorsed by the Board of Health.

Dr. Hastings’ tenure in the Health Department often followed a theme of ambitious goals followed by unfortunately minimal results. A lively clash between the Officer of Health and Mayor Church in August 1918 pointed to a potential reason for inaction. The matter at hand was the noise emitted by the Gutta Percha and Rubber Co. factory in Parkdale and its impact on the denizens of West Lodge Avenue.

The mayor made “a rather scornful comment” about the department’s inability to deal with nuisances. After a protest from Hastings, the mayor doubled down, saying that Hastings had not “stopped a nuisance in the city yet.” Hastings argued he had to operate within the law – the Public Health Act – which the mayor conceded was a slow and cumbersome process. It was agreed the Criminal Code was a better tool. In January 1919, in the battle between Gutta Percha and Rubber Co. and West Lodge Avenue residents, Hastings admitted that the Ministry of Health was powerless to “abate necessary noises.” He would ask for reforms to the Public Health Act in 1920.

In the 1920s, calls from the City officials and residents to lessen the noise of the city continued. In 1921, Hastings identified idling motorists outside houses who honked their horns, especially between the hours of 10PM and 7AM, as a particular nuisance. He also targeted door to door fruit peddlers, although he was not as hopeful on this matter since peddlers were licensed.

In 1926, an “anti-noise crusader,” Grenville Kleiser of France, wrote a letter to the Board of Control advocating an “anti-noise” day or week with a set of seven rules to adhere to during the period. The proposal had the support of Mayor Thomas Foster as well as Dr. Hastings, who stated the city needed 52 anti-noise weeks. Hastings acknowledged that the increasing demands of life were having an impact on “the nerves.” Just as he had done five years before, he identified idling and honking motorists as contributors. “The whole tendency of modern life is destructive to the nerves,” he summarised.

Dr. Hastings’ tenure as Toronto’s Medical Health Officer ended in 1929 with his retirement – two years before his death. Although his efforts in abating the “noise nuisances” in the city had mixed results, his legacy as a dedicated public servant who steered the city in a variety of other key issues remains. As for Toronto’s noise nuisances, they continued beyond his tenure with a combination of prior annoyances and new nuisances, accompanied by ever-present campaigns to regulate and quiet the noise.

Old Toronto Sounds Outlawed

Special thanks to Ariella Elema and the Toronto Archives for their assistance in accessing historical by-laws

No. 1514.

A BY-LAW To prevent certain noises calculated to disturb the inhabitants.
[Passed November 3rd, 1884.]

WHEREAS it is expedient and necessary to prevent the unnecessary use of steam whistles within the limits of the City of Toronto;

Therefore the Council of the Corporation of the City of Toronto enacts as follows:

I.No person shall blow or cause to be blown, sound or cause to be sounded, the steam whistle of any steamer while lying at any wharf in the City of Toronto or when approaching or leaving such wharf, except when absolutely necessary as a signal of danger, or in the cases and under the circumstances prescribed by the Laws and Statutes of the Dominion of Canada and the Orders-in-Council (if any) passed in pursuance thereof requiring the use of such whistles.

Commentary: Toronto early bylaws regulated the use of whistles from steamers and trains as they were common in Toronto 19^th– and earl- 20th century auditory environment. Later noise laws also included this prohibition.

No. 2452.

A By-law To prevent certain Noises calculated to disturb the Inhabitants.

PASSED 13th January, 1890.

THE Municipal Council of the Corporation of the City of Toronto enacts as follows :­

1. No person shall advertise any sale of merchandize, furniture, or other article, or matter, by the ringing of a bell, blowing of a horn, crying, hallooing, or creating any other discordant noise, in the streets of the City, or on the step of a house or other premises open to the public street, whereby the public are liable to be subjected to inconvenience and annoyance: Provided always, that nothing contained in this section shall be construed to extend to any person duly appointed and authorized by the Council to follow the calling of Police Crier or City Bellman

Commentary: An amendment in 1892 excused milk dealers on weekdays from the ‘ringing of a bell’ clause.

No. 14913.

A BY-LAW Respecting Noises

[Passed March 14th, 1938.]

The Council of the Corporation of the City of Toronto enacts as follows:

II.

For the purpose of Section I, the following noises or sounds, among others, shall be deemed to be unnecessary noises which disturb the inhabitants:

(3) The sound or noise from or created by any radio or phonograph, or any musical or sound-producing instrument of whatsoever kind when such radio or phonograph or instrument is played or operated in such manner or with such volume as to annoy or disturb the peace, quiet, comfort or repose of any individual in any dwelling house, apartment house, hotel or other type of residence.

Commentary: This was part of Toronto’s most extensive noise law to date as the city wished to eliminate any ambiguity from older regulations regarding unnecessary noises. The provision on radio noise reflected the medium’s rise as a commercial sound machine. By-Law 14193, requiring approval from Queen’s Park, was initially rejected by the Province as being too “drastic”. The bill was reintroduced and passed in 1939 after persuasion from city officials. In a separate event, Toronto City Council also amended the law to exclude the Salvation Army from the law, to allow it to hold street corner meetings.

---