Permission for cat unreasonably denied and mediation costs

I have a friend who was told by his EC that he could not have his small dogs in his apartment. The reason was because they are there. There has been no complaints, no incidents within the complex. It is just because one EC member saw the dogs going for a walk. He took it to mediation nd then the tribunal and he won.

Have.a look at the pets in the city website. It has a lot of information about pets in strata. Also, the law society website has a section about pets in strata. If you re friendly with any other owners you could talk to them as to whether they are bothered by the fact you have a cat.

I believe it is unreasonable to deny permission for a pet simply because it is there. If they do not want pets in their complex they should have had that written into the by laws.

@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.

@Robbiejuve said:
 

My next move is what confuses me. The strata manager told me to go down the mediation path if I wasn’t happy with the decision but Jimmy and Blue’s replies suggest I ignore the notice, get the cat back in the apartment and wait for them to take me to mediation?

The question is, do you a) bring the cat back home and let the EC pursue action against you, which must start with mediation; b) bring the cat back and take action at Fair Trading to force them to permit it; or c)r leave the cat where it is and take action at Fair trading which will cost you the best part of $80 and is not refundable?  The latter is the more legitimate way but I would be tempted to take the first route and let them pursue you (at their expense). 

If you simply bring the cat back into the home they can follow up the Notice To Comply with a complaint to Fair Trading – this will cost you nothing.

The $550 fine is a worst-case scenario and is highly unlikely to be applied in your case.  Much worse offences get much lower fines than $550.  And given that the EC appears to be applying the by-law incorrectly there is every chance that you will win the case anyway.

If I were in your shoes, I would reply to the Notice To Comply and tell them that you believe they are imposing the by-law incorrectly, that you have been refused permission unreasonably and therefore you are happy for them to take action against you at the CTTT because you think you will win there.

At the same time, I would be strongly tempted to bring the cat back into the unit, where it belongs.

Then I would wait for the mediation to be called (at their expense), attend the meeting and restate the belief that you have unreasonably been refused permission because there is no ban on pets in the by-laws but they are trying to impose one.

The EC members not wanting pets in the building is not a ‘reasonable’ basis for refusing an application.  The by-law says pets are allowed subject to permission being given on a reasonable basis.  The EC is trying to countermand the wishes of the Owners Corps which has approved the by-law allowing pets.

If the EC wants a ban on all pets they have to get 75 percent of owners to agree to a new by-law but I think they have even left it too late to make that work retrospectively.

Respond to the Notice To Comply as I have described, attend mediation if you are called and I’m pretty sure you will be OK if it goes to an adjudication.  If, in the final summation, the CTTT does decide that this de facto ban is allowed (unlikely), you will almost certainly be given the opportunity to find a new home for the cat before you are fined.

Also, demand all correspondence in writing, and note any attempts to bully you by sending letters of complaint to the strata manager as they can be used in evidence at the CTTT.  

Attend any EC meetings where your issue is on the agenda (as it must be, if they are to discuss it) and refuse to leave if they say they want to discuss it in private – you are entitled to be there, even if you may not be allowed to speak, and there is no such thing as ‘private’ business in Owners Corporations.

Also, ask to see the minutes of the EC meeting that decided to issue the Notice To Comply so that you can make a record of the reasons given for the refusal.

Whichever route you take, hang in there – the EC is wrong and you are right.

Robbiejuve could do a lot worse than include those conditions in his reply to the EC.  He can promise that his cat won’t do any of those nasty things and say he is prepared to make that a condition of acceptance.  It will all go to strengthen his case if it gets to the CTTT.