While I search for the case that J S Mueller made reference to without citation I will let you ponder the by-law enforcement provisions.
By-law Enforcement
146 Notice by owners corporation to owner or occupier
(1) An owners corporation for a strata scheme <u>may</u> give a notice, in a form approved by the Secretary, to the owner or occupier of a lot in the scheme requiring the owner or occupier to comply with a specified by-law if the owners corporation is satisfied that the owner or occupier has contravened that by-law.
We then drift off to the Interpretation Act and find:
9 Meaning of may and shall
(1) In any Act or instrument, the word “may”, if used to confer a power, indicates that the power may be exercised or not, at discretion.
(2) In any Act or instrument, the word “shall”, if used to impose a duty, indicates that the duty must be performed.
Applying 9(1) to s 146.
The power in s 146 to issue a NTC , to pursue enforcement of a by-law, may be exercised <u>or not, at discretion</u>.
Simply put there is no obligation under s 146 to send a NTC. It follows there is no mandatory obligation, function or duty to enforce the by-laws. The OC can at its discretion, even if satisfied there is a breach, choose not to pursue the matter. The discretionary nature of the power to pursue a by-law breach as found in s 146 means there is no obligation on the SC / OC to enforce the by-laws.
It is not a function of the OC to enforce the by-laws if s 146 is our guide and there is nothing explicit anywhere else to guide us.