KP, I’ve had a look at the CTTT case you quoted because I suspected there was a reason that the only example that you could find quoting precedent was a pet ruling. I guessed that the key phrase “must not be unreasonably refused” would come into play here. Sure enough, the adjudicator quoted the by-law:
… the Owners Corporation’s alleged desire to maintain a “no pets” policy, also cannot simply be applied without question. The by-law at issue, states:
“16. Keeping of animals
(1) Subject to section 49(4), an owner or occupier of a lot must not, without the approval in writing to the Owners Corporation, keep any animal on the lot or the common property.
(2) The Owners Corporation must not unreasonably withhold its approval of the keeping of an animal on a lot or the common property.”
Thus the by-law provides for the owners to seek approval to keep an animal, and the Owners Corporation must not unreasonably withhold or refuse its approval.
So, in a case like this, it’s obvious that previous decisions would be brought into play because the key was to establish what was reasonable, rather than what was legally right or wrong.
As far as I know there is no other aspect of strata law where the concept of what is considered reasonable takes precedence over what is legally allowed. I’ve never liked the phrase “the exception that proves the rule” but I think this is precisely one of those cases.
I stand 100 percent behind what I said below and I think Adammark would be very, very unwise to proceed with work on the basis that others have got away with less scrutiny in the past.