Jimmy,
I think for the purposes of the section ‘hindered or obstructed’ referrs to the actions of a person. If the damage arose as a result of the person’s obstruction or hinderance the OC is not liable. By inference the person who obstructed would be liable.
Reading the Section 65 it says “any damage to a lot or any of its contents caused by or arising out of the carrying out of any work, or the exercise of a power of entry, referred to in this section” (emphasis added). In my view, the section ie section 65 should be read as containing within it any conditions/definitions before going elsewhere.
Subsection (5) says a “A person must not obstruct or hinder an owners corporation in the exercise of its functions under this section” so I would say subsection (6) should be read as saying obstruct or hinder refers to a person obstructing or hindering.
In caj’s case “the damage to his lot … arising out of the carrying out of any work” was the damage done by drilling the locks and NOT by a person hindering or obstructing. Thus the OC is liable.
I am willing to be corrected by any lawyers out there!