@Kangaroo said:
OK, I’ve had a few whiskies, so let’s get started.JT …
“There was no ban on pets”, but there was a ban on pets “arriving” without written permission (in the form of a By-Law).
The by-law on pets that was in place says that pets are not allowed except with with the permission of the Owners Corp which must not be unreasonably refused. It doesn’t say ‘prior permission’ and Keb had permission of the landlord so she would have reasonably assumed she was on safe ground.
Permission has to come from the OC, not the landlord, not the SM, not the EC (unless the OC choose not to override their decision).
The EC IS the Owners Corp in decisions such as this although, you are right, their decisions can be countermanded by a general meeting of the Owners Corp. This is what the Strata Act says:
21 Executive committee’s decisions to be decisions of owners corporation
(1) A decision of an executive committee is taken to be the decision of the owners corporation, subject to subsection (4).
It does, however, go on to list the exceptions to this rule, of which this is not one.
The OC can take you to the CTTT for breaching a By-Law, either the old one requring permission, or the new one banning pets altogether.
Or you could take the OC to the CTTT, on the grounds of “unreasonable” refusal, or that they changed the By-Laws during your tenancy.
My advice would be to tough it out – let them make all the running and defy them to provide evidence that the dog is a nuisance and this is anything less than unreasonable persecution because they didn’t read their own by-laws properly.
And if they give you any trouble, threaten them with an AVO for harrassment – doesn’t look too good on a lawyer’s CV.