I think the Unit Titles (Management) Act only requires the text of a motion to be included with the notice of a meeting if it is a resolution requiring an unopposed or unanimous resolution (Schedule 3.7 (1)(d)). However, I think it is very poor practice not to include the text of every motion.
It seems odd that 3 owners out of 10 would be billed for the cost of a meeting when the UTMA has a provision that 25% of owners can petition the EC to call a general meeting. I would not think that you could be billed for doing something that the Act permits you (30%) to do: “… if the executive committee of an owners corporation receives a written request (a meeting request), stating the matters to be considered at the meeting, from people who are entitled to vote on all motions for units whose combined unit entitlement is at least 1/4 of the total unit entitlement in the units plan. … The executive committee must hold a general meeting, by notice under section 3.6, within 28 days after the day it receives the meeting request.” (UTMA Schedule 3.5)
As for a motion to rescind a previous motion, that seems relatively straightforward: Motion X: That the owners corporation by Ordinary Resolution, agrees to rescind motion X of the general meeting of (date) and reimburse $862.03 each to the owners of units X, Y and Z.
I assume the initial resolution was an ordinary resolution. Generally a resolution to rescind a previous resolution requires the same class of resolution unless the Act provides otherwise.
All that said, with only 10 owners, and if the 3 owners wanted an update on a cost recovery action, was it not possible to just informally ask the members of the EC how things were going? Were they not forthcoming? Was it suspected that they were not acting and this was a move to force some action? It sounds like there might have been more to this story.