For many urban dwellers, a pet can provide companionship and emotional support in a small living space. Keeping a pet can help to combat feelings of loneliness and isolation, especially for those living alone. Pets can also serve as a source of entertainment, bringing joy and playfulness into a person’s life. Taking a dog for a walk, for example, can be an excellent way to get exercise and fresh air, while playing with a cat can provide physical and mental stimulation. Furthermore, owning a pet can also promote a sense of responsibility and help to develop a routine. Feeding and caring for a pet can provide a sense of purpose, and can help to create a structured daily routine. Overall, having a pet in an apartment can bring a range of emotional and physical benefits to their owners, making them a beloved and important part of many people’s lives.
Section 180(7) of the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld) provides that a by-law must not be oppressive or unreasonable, having regard to the interests of all owners and occupiers of lots included in the scheme and the use of the common property for the scheme. Decisions in the context of that provision have considered by-laws with fixed and arbitrary restrictions on the power of a committee or body corporate to approve a given pet application, such as weight, size and number limits, and have found them to be invalid for being oppressive or unreasonable: Trilogy [2019] QBCCMCmr 286 at [11]- [13].
One of the most common by-laws in this area is a limit on the size on animals, in particular dogs. However, such a rule is likely to be invalid if challenged, as RSPCA advice suggests that larger dogs may be more suitable to smaller living spaces than some smaller dogs, because some larger breeds tend to sleep more, especially when their human companions are absent during the day, and small breeds can have barks that are more annoying for neighbours: Marina Residences [2020] QBCCMCmr 648 at [35]. The decision went on to find at [36]:
The preference for smaller dogs is therefore not only unsupported by expert opinion, it may be counterproductive of harmonious coexistence between dogs and humans, because it would remove all discretion from the Committee to approve a dog more likely to be quiet and sedate. A rule that tends towards diminishing the enjoyment of a parcel by proprietors cannot be said to be a proportionate exercise of power.
This is not to say a committee cannot have any control over the numbers and types of animals allowed. Outright bans and hard rules about weight and type that remove all discretion are not reasonably proportionate, especially when animals still have to go through an approvals process anyway. Valid by-laws should give the committee appropriate discretion, such as allowing conditional approvals when in doubt, or with some discretion to consider exemptions. There usually exists a raft of other by-laws (such as preventing nuisance) and laws that impose behavioural and other standards and empower a committee to seek the removal of an animal that proves to be inappropriate for the scheme.