A covenant that requires a positive act cannot be a binding covenant that runs with the land. Today’s Court of Appeal decision in Lohse v. Fleming, 2008 ONCA 307 provides:
The trial judge then considered the covenant relating to water supply in Schedule “A” with a view to determining its nature and whether it did or did not “run with the land either at law or in equity.” He concluded that the covenant in issue constituted a positive covenant, and as such, it did not run with the land. His reasons in this regard are found at paras. 36-38 as follows:
Amberwood Investments Ltd. v. Durham Condominium Corp. No. 123 (2002) Carswell Ont. 850 (
Rights flowing from any of the oral water rate supply agreements have ended by the passage of time.
…
… the trial judge was on solid ground in concluding that the positive nature of this obligation prevented the appellants from obtaining an easement, and that absent privity of contract, this positive covenant could not run with the land: see Nordin v. Faridi, [1996] 5 W.W.R. 242 at para. 45 (B.C.C.A.); Parkinson v. Reid, [1966] S.C.R. 162 at 167; and Amberwood Investments Ltd. v. Durham Condominium Corp. No. 123 (2002), 58 O.R. (3d) 481 (
James Morton
Steinberg Morton Hope & Israel
M2N 6P4
416 225 2777
Blog: http://jmortonmusings.blogspot.com/
1 comment:
Good day, sun shines!
There have were times of hardship when I didn't know about opportunities of getting high yields on investments. I was a dump and downright pessimistic person.
I have never thought that there weren't any need in large initial investment.
Nowadays, I'm happy and lucky , I begin take up real money.
It gets down to select a proper partner who uses your funds in a right way - that is incorporate it in real deals, parts and divides the income with me.
You may ask, if there are such firms? I have to answer the truth, YES, there are. Please get to know about one of them:
http://theinvestblog.com [url=http://theinvestblog.com]Online Investment Blog[/url]
Post a Comment