To me, the guiding principle is what is in the interests of the owners corporation as a whole, i.e. the owners as a collective. So:
– if you have a by-law in relation to pets requiring that permission be obtained, permission should be obtained. That permission should not be unreasonably withheld, if that is how the by-law works. This gives all the owners certainty.
If you are in a small building with a common courtyard, then it may be unreasonable for someone to keep three great danes.
– if someone wants to do work that affects the common property, they must seek permission from the OC, and a by-law be put in place. This protects the interests of the other owners.
– if someone wants to do renovations that don’t affect common property, then they should notify the OC and seek permission in relation to the hours of work and tradesmen accessing the property. They should also provide an assurance that the works they are undertaking do not affect the common property.
– by-laws in relation to parking areas should be enforced consistently for everyone across the board.
Going back to ccbaxter’s question, the problem with flexibility is it means different things to different people. The fish example is just silly. If an EC/OC applies the by-laws consistently they promote certainty and protect the interests of the owners as a whole. If a by-law is considered unreasonable or pointless, then the owners can change it or get rid of it.