#63574
TrulEConcerned
Flatchatter

    The Hood wrote

    It seems to me to be that the issue for the owner is with the dogs owner, not the OC, as I think it is the case that it is discretionary for the OC to act in such matters. Take the legislation surrounding the breach of a by-law for example, even if the OC is satisfied there is a breach the OC “may” (a discretionary term) act by sending a NTC; there is no obligation to take action.

    The discretionary aspect is what IMHO dooms this provision to being close to useless.

    Take The Hood’s correct understanding (at least I think so), that even if the OC agrees there is/was a breach a by-law, it can choose not to issue a NTC.

    I have witnessed an even greater insult to owners: a SC member chronically parks on CP, a gross breach of our by-laws, yet (a) the SC refuses to list a complaint about this (by an owner) at a SC or general meetings and (b) the arrogant SC member denies she is in breach, claiming, with a straight face, that she visits the premises for OC matters and hence is not bound by the by-law. Why she visits, how long  she’s on the premises and what she does there on those visits is not only irrelevant to her breaches (plural), but she doesn’t even pony up specific explanations for her visits.

    Surely a better way would be to compel an OC to issue a NTC, which the “recipient” would then have the opportunity to prove why the NTC was wrongly issued.