I can see your point Peter, but as I understand the circumstances as described by bcr83 in his previous posts, his Executive Committee (E/C) hasn’t formally refused his application to fasten an airconditioning unit to the common property (wall) but has rather insisted, under a strict interpretation of one provision of a Special By-Law (SBL) covering the visibility of such units from other Lots etc, that he place that unit on his balcony, from where he claims it would be as visible as it would be if placed in his preferred location on the common wall, and be as visible as other owners’ balcony installed units are (whew).
I’m not a conspiratist but I can appreciate bcr83‘s concerns about a contrived outcome at the General Meeting, where the Members of his E/C who have themselves made a determination on his application (as they can within the terms of the SBL) may be the only attendees, who armed with sufficient proxies will merely give more credence to the earlier determination, and make bcr83‘s case even weaker should he choose to take it to adjudication.
The Owners Corporation declined the opportunity to attend Mediation and that won’t go well for them if bcr83 now takes his matter to Adjudication, and seeks Orders under Sect 138, or in my opinion more appropriately under Sect 140 as consent hasn’t been refused, just prescribed.
The worst possible outcome would be that the SBL is upheld, and bcr83′s airconditioner would need to installed on his balcony, so I’d be pushing that dispute settlement envelope and keeping the E/C’s preferred approach to an General Meeting in my back pocket.