@Blue Swimmer said:
I must ask you, Robbiejuve, why was the cat there without permission at all, since you knew it was required? You should simply have asked for permission in the beginning, as per the requirements.
I agree with most of what Blue Swimmer has written but the question of why permission wasn’t sought before the cat was introduced speaks to the issue of why there is a by-law that appears to allow pets under certain circumstances but then, in reality, is used to operate as a blanket ban.
As BS says, if they want a ban they should pass a by-law banning pets. A by-law that sets out the conditions under which pets can be allowed, implies that pets are allowed and therefore any refusal on the basis of “we don’t want pets” is unreasonable.
I also disagree on the tactics of not attending the mediation. I would attend, state the case as I’ve outlined and leave it at that. It doesn’t look good if you refuse to attend – maybe you don’t care enough – but there is no compulsion to concede anything at the mediation.
As for costs, there are very very few circumstances under which the CTTT is allowed award costs and even then they don’t. So forget it. But if the cat isn’t causing any problem to anyone else, refusal is unreasonable and you are in the right.