- The Owners Corporation is able to make rules concerning how the common property is usable or accessible to owners and others. This rule would appear to be allowable.
- It is unlikely to be regarded as discriminatory because the reason for the rule directly relates to the category of resident to which it applies. That is, it relates to the safety of children, and it applies to children. If a query were to be raised it would be assessed only on whether or not the safety of children had been properly assessed.
- It is unlikely to be regarded as fraud against a minority because it confers no specific advantage on those proposing or supporting the rule.
So I would recommend getting out there and collecting proxies.
The OC concern about possible liability has some justification. If an accident occurred and it was deemed the fault of the child or parent, then the OC might be sued on the basis that they did not take steps to prevent the child or parent putting themselves in danger – ie, imposing a ban or putting up warning signs. Whether that claim would succeed is unpredictable. For instance, if the OC passes the bylaw, but a parent was able to show that it was not enforced, then a claim might succeed! On the other hand, if there was no by-law, but plenty of warning signs for both drivers and parents, then the claim might fail. What would be certain is that there would be legal costs, but that should be covered by insurance.