He doesn’t say anything of the sort mini – in that post he says:
One of those distinctions is between “retrospective” application of a new law to past events, and the “saving”, or continued operation of old law to new events. There is fairly common tendency to conflate the two concepts .
That is precisely what you have done. Also the discussion is in relation to someone who got approval, but didn’t get a dog, and then the old by-law was replaced with one that prevented keeping of animals. Mr Russell’s view was that the consent under the old by-law no longer applied because of that. The person would have had a right accrued under the old by-law, if they had brought a dog in in reliance on the consent under the old by-law.
I have mentioned before that it is very dangerous to copy slabs of decisions taken from another context and apply them to another scenario. It is not helpful and conversely is very confusing for people who come here looking for advice.
I don’t think you have read White v Bettali very carefully – it says that the limitations on the kind of regulations that may be set by by-laws arise from the statute that permit them to be made. I don’t think it was ever the intention of the legislature that strata law could be used to prescribe the exact removals company that may be used by a resident.