The applicants brought an application and cross-application to strike a 1991 consent order from the parcel register of their lands.
The consent order purported to create a restrictive covenant preventing the storage of derelict vehicles and materials, binding the original defendants and their successors in title.
The court held that the original consent order was invalid because a court order cannot bind non-parties (successors in title) based solely on the agreement of the parties.
Furthermore, the restrictive covenant failed to adequately identify the dominant tenement.
The court also found that even if valid, the covenant should be discharged under s. 61 of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act because a subsequent municipal property standards by-law rendered it redundant.
The order was struck from the register.
