@Blueman said:
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.
You are missing the point. The model by-law says pets can’t be allowed without the permission of the EC. Which effectively means pets CAN be allowed WITH the permission of the EC.
It then says that permission can’t unreasonably be refused.
So what is unreasonable? Saying “we have never allowed pets” is not a reason … it’s a statement of previous decisions. A reasonable purchaser might reasonably assume that their pets would be allowed if there was no reason – eg, they didn’t cause a nuisance or were too big or dangerous or smelly or whatever – to refuse.
Your sarcasm is misplaced. Try applying reason to your arguments and you may see where they are flawed. And ask yourself why you have a by-law that addresses pets when you seem to think you don’t need one.