I agree with Scottie. There is nothing in the Act, and specifically the parts cited by “stressed” to prevent bonds being charged, and just because the Act doesn’t specifically allow it, doesn’t mean it isn’t allowed.
The only obstacle would be if the by-law permitting bonds was “harsh, unconscionable or oppressive”. So there is a “reasonableness” test that can be applied.
On a broader note, conflating disparate areas of the Act in an effort to support a quasi-legalistic argument – or bush lawyerism, for want of a better term – is frowned upon in this forum.
I know it can be fun exploring legal loopholes, but strata is confusing enough without people plucking bits of the Act out of the air, then presenting an arcane opinion as irrefutable fact “supported” by references that are, in fact, largely irrelevant.