Thanks guys for your prompt responses.
I have a query against kiwipaul’s response.
What is there to stop false claims of what was there before or what has/has not changed, if there is no evidence of anything other than the pavers ever existing. When purchasing the property I was under the (allegedly false) impression that the pavers were the baseline.
I would have thought that when a new owner signs a contract, then the state of the lot and its title, bylaws and AGM minutes etc, form that contract. Thus if according to all the documentation there was never an unapproved change, then the pavers are the baseline. Ie returning to standard means repair pavers, not dig them up.
I accept that JimmyT’s proposal forms a compromise noting that the area in question is common property that realistically only affects my lot. Unfortunately when presented with this option the EC wants his cake and eat it too – I pay now and also introduce the bylaw for future cost, and EC also wants to use this as precedence for other areas OC common property.
Also, what if that common property area was a fence or a wall. Walls and fences often only service one or two lots, but it is still OC who pays for repair. What is different in this case?
Thanks again.
