Wirihana: Don’t ring the victory bells too soon, don’t count your chickens before they hatch, etc.
Whale: I think you’ve overlooked clause B(1) of the By-Law.
… shall not keep nor cause nor permit the keeping of any animal (except a cat, a small dog, a small caged bird or fish kept in a secure aquarium) within a lot or the common property.
Clause B(2) merely defines the responsibilities of the owner if an animal allowed by clause B(1) is kept.
Promising to comply with clause B(2) won’t wash if Wirihana is already in breach of the pre-eminent clause B(1).
Also, the By-Law provided by Wirihana does not contain the “without the approval in writing of the owners corporation” clause. It’s no use asking for approval. Neither the EC nor the OC has the power to give it.
Neither does the By-Law contain the “not unreasonably withhold its approval” clause. I disagree that:
It’s a well accepted principle that a Plan’s (Special) By-Laws cannot be harsh or oppressive, and that any relating to the keeping of animals cannot unreasonably withhold consent.
In fact, I understand that the CCCT/NCAT will not hear a dispute based on “unreasonable refusal” unless the By-law does contain that clause.
That particular version of a Pets By-Law, which has been around for 10 or 20 years now, was the first attempt by “strata” to be pet-friendly. The Government caused the problem by being “ridiculously unprescriptive” and legislating “small dog” without defining what “small” meant. That phrase is still in the (current) model By-Laws.
However, that By-Law does sound dated, and I’m told that community feeling has moved on in 2 respects:
1) That large dogs are no more of a problem than small dogs.
2) That having to carry your pet while on common property is impracticable.
Wirihana again:
It never ceases to amaze me how diligent people are in searching for a loophole in the letter of a By-Law and how undiligent they are in complying with the spirit of the By-Law.
It is obvious that the owners don’t (or didn’t at the time) want large dogs around.
The By-Law is not one of the model By-Laws, so it cannot have been passed by default. It was specifically voted for by 75%+ of the owners. How many of them do you want to offend?
Having said all the above, you do have “rights”:
a) If you are the owner, you have the right to submit a better By-Law for special resolution at the next GM.
b) If you are visiting the owner, you have the right to lobby the owner to submit a better By-Law for special resolution at the next GM.
c) If you are visiting a tenant, you have the right to lobby the tenant to lobby the owner to submit a better By-Law for special resolution at the next GM.
d) You have the right to leave your dog at your country residence if there is someone else there to look after it.