Can the requirements for a ¾ majority or unanimity can never be overridden?

The cases Norenger relies on do not establish that the Act’s requirements for a ¾ majority or unanimity can never be overridden. In particular, Barrett v. Strata Plan LMS 3265, 2016 BCSC 1477, is not authority for that proposition. It concerned an application to amend a schedule of unit entitlement. Relief was sought under ss. 246(8) and 164 of the Act. Section 165 was argued in the alternative. The court ordered the schedule amended under s. 246(8)(a) and under s. 164. It was in that context that the court concluded that s. 165 was not available. I interpret the court’s conclusion as a determination that s. 165 was not engaged because the relief sought was available pursuant to other sections of the Act.