Current Page

[Wirihana]

Once again many thanks for postings, Whale and Kangaroo.

Kangaroo, in response to your comment about being “undiligent in complying with the spirit of the By-Law” I can only say that I felt that I was complying with the “spirit” of the by-law.

I made my own strata inspection before purchase and did not find any documentation indicating enforcement of any parts of the pet by-law. 

I found an application for a dog larger than permitted that had not been refused (or had no refusal notice filed). 

When I visited the property I saw dogs of various sizes off-leash and playing in the grounds, cats roaming freely, and a rabbit.  

From that I understood the community to be pet-friendly, generally tolerant and having a sensible and casual attitude to the letter of the law. 

I had no intention of offending anyone, but find it difficult to understand how anyone could be offended by a large dog and not a small one.

I consider myself a respectable and law-abiding citizen. 

The special by-law replaced one that was similar but included a definition of “small”, removed the bit about unreasonable refusal and added the parts about indemnity and noise, so I doubt that there was a lot of discussion on it before it was passed.

Having said that, you pre-empted my actions. 

At considerable imposition to all concerned, I made arrangements to keep my dog away from the property. 

I also submitted a general meeting agenda item to change the existing by-law, stating that it is unreasonable and unworkable and that it should be replaced with the standard by-law option A.

This is where the story becomes a bit more complicated.

The general meeting was called without an EC meeting to convene it (or 25% of owners calling for it).  In fact the EC has not had any meetings since it was elected at the AGM in October.

My agenda item for by-law change was submitted a day after the meeting notice was issued so it was not included.

The motion calling for me to be served with a “notice to comply” was struck out.

That left the focus on Labrador Lady. 

She collected a good number of proxies from supporters but submitted them less than 24 hours before the meeting, so they were refused. 

Due to lack of quorum the meeting was adjourned for six days (I thought it had to be seven? Plus four days for postal notification?)

When she resubmitted them (24 hours before) the adjourned meeting, together with some new ones, they were still refused on the grounds that they had to be submitted to the original meeting and not an adjournment.

The meeting was a dog’s breakfast.  Any discussion or questions on the by-law itself, or enforcement of it, were shouted down as being irrelevant and that the motion was about a breach.  The chairman made no effort to call the meeting to order.  I discovered that people who don’t like dogs are very Vehement about it.

When I asked if the EC thought they should have the occasional meeting I was told that they were far too busy managing a large property to have meetings “all the time”.

The vote was not counted and the motion declared resolved on a show of hands.  I reckon that if the proxies had not been refused it may have been defeated.  The treasurer asked the chairman the same question.  I could not hear his reply so I asked him to repeat it.  He refused and declared the meeting closed.

So where to from here?  Presumably I can call for mediation and adjudication to have the meeting declared invalid, as it was not correctly convened, and all decisions overturned? 

Would I be able to include mediation about the breach notice issued to me included at the same time?

Or would I have to bring the dog back and wait for the process to start again?

I would like to test the validity of the by-law as a point of interest and principle but have been advised that there are no set precedents and that matters are decided on a case-by-case basis.  Is this correct?

All comments advice and psychic power will be much appreciated.