|
|
|
#11
11-08-2007, 04:02 PM
|
|||||
|
|||||
No problem, Albert. As well, as an owner (missed that part before), she should have a copy of the condominium by-laws where everything is stated in black and white.
__________________
~Drew 10G Nano * 10G Sump * Deltec MCE 600 Skimmer * JBL Viper 150w MH * Zeovit * Vortech MP40W Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. ~S. Ertz  
|
|
#12
11-08-2007, 04:07 PM
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
the condo society would have to prove that she had the cat for those days.
they can't pull numbers out of the sky. I think that they are just playing bully and that they have little or no case. I would definitely consult a lawyer. sometimes a letter with a lawyer's letterhead changes people's minds.
__________________
Way too much time and money has gone into this hobby....and yet, I CAN'T STOP
|
|
#14
11-08-2007, 04:10 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Okay, I'll try to find a lawyer once I get a hold of the fine.
Any recommendations?
__________________
This and that.
|
|
#15
11-08-2007, 04:14 PM
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Call the UofC (I think they have a legal aid deparment), and ask for legal aid. They will give you the local Calgary number for lawyer referal line.
|
|
#16
11-08-2007, 04:18 PM
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
If she owns the condo, she probably signed something agreeing to the condo corporation by-laws. That makes it a tough argument to get it completely thrown out. If the Condo corporation is convinced that she knowingly broke the rules, the chances of her getting away with this are pretty slim. Her best bet will be to try to appeal to the corporation and try to reduce the fine.
Now, this 130 days of cat ownership... did they arrive at that time by looking at her first catsitting offence and deciding that because she had a cat 130 days ago and has a cat now that she must have had a cat for the full 130 days? If so, one could try to prove that she was only babysitting the first cat for a few days and in doing so cast doubt on the amount of time that the second cat has been in the apartment, opening the door for a reduction of the fine. Either way, if she's going to appeal to the board for a reduction or leniency the first thing she has to do is get rid of that cat. There is no way they will believe that she is sincere about regretting her decision to pick up that cat if she still has it and refuses to get rid of it.
|
|
#17
11-08-2007, 05:24 PM
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Yup babysitting a cat for a sick friend
 for 2 days when it was seen and when it was seen again
__________________
Murray I reserve the right to hijack any thread I want to!! My carbon footprint is bigger than your carbon footprint !!!!
|
|
#19
11-08-2007, 06:11 PM
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
She needs to remove the cat from the condo asap! As soon as she became aware of the No Cat requirement, that cat should have been gone. If the cat is still there, she is seriously in contravention of the bylaw or act that they are enforcing. On top of that, she is Knowingly contravening the bylaw. She shouldn't flaunt it in their face if she wants them to go a bit easier on her.
__________________
SeaShell
|
|
#20
11-08-2007, 06:53 PM
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Quote:
|
Linear Mode
