Who’s to say that in this case the refusal was unreasonable? Just because the application was rejected, does not make it unreasonable. The OP states the block had been pet free from some time.
If the existing owners wanted to allow pets they could introduce a bylaw for that purpose, it seems they haven’t. Seems by refusing applications the majority of existing owners don’t want pets.
If the existing owners wanted to allow pets and were unhappy with the decisions of the existing EC, they could change the EC at the appropriate meeting, but they haven’t done that either.
JT, our bylaws do attempt to address this issue, but they make no mention of horses, cattle, pigs, goats, fish, snakes, lizards, spiders, cockroaches or a whole heap of other animals, etc.