A neighbourhood association sought to enforce restrictive covenants and by-laws against a property owner who proposed to add eight new windows to the exterior side wall of his townhouse following fire damage repairs.
The owner challenged the validity of the restrictive covenants as vague, uncertain, and ambiguous, arguing they lacked objective criteria and could be enforced arbitrarily.
The court upheld the restrictive covenants as valid and enforceable, finding they were part of a building scheme designed to preserve uniformity of the community's exterior appearance.
The court distinguished building schemes from developer's restrictive covenants, noting that under a building scheme all owners share similar burdens and benefits.
The court granted the association's application for a declaration that the covenants were valid and enforceable, and that the owner was in breach.
