All the chairman needs to do is reiterate the conditions that allow him (or her) to rule the motion out of order. However, I can’t see how any of those conditions would apply.
The comment that it would be like banning backstroke, is irrelevant. Banning “bombing” in the pool might be closer to the mark, or taking glassware into the pool area – these are innocent pursuits on their own but with potential health and safety implications.
This may be an occasion where a quiet word before the meeting may be the best approach. If the chair thinks the by-law is wrong, he should explain why to the meeting then let them vote. The fact is that yes, you can take this to a higher authority – Section 232 is all about disputes between the owners corp and owners, and section 245(5) says this:
An application to the Tribunal for an order authorising a motion for submission to a general meeting may be made by any person who, at the time of the application, could have applied for the order to which the proposed motion relates.
I’m not entirely sure what that means, but the main point is that the chair should allow the vote to go ahead if only because not doing so is going to lead to a lot of unnecessary strife. If the anti-anglers are in a sufficient majority, and they are thwarted on a dubious technicality, then there is no way the matter will end there and the ensuing strife will cost the scheme financially and in its community spirit and cohesion.
If the by-law is “incompetent” under strata law, then it can be allowed fail at the registration stage. But declaring a vote on it “out of order” is highly dubious, undemocratic and unnecessary and will fast-track the scheme to a world of pain.