Noble v Alley

Last updated
Noble v Alley
Supreme court of Canada in summer.jpg
Hearing: June 13, 16, 1950
Judgment: November 20, 1950
Full case nameNoble and Wolf v Alley et al.
Citations [1951] SCR 64, 1950 CanLII 13 (SCC)
Prior historyAPPEAL from Noble et al. v. Alley, 1949 CanLII 13, [1949] OR 503(9 June 1949), Court of Appeal (Ontario,Canada), affirming Re Noble and Wolf, 1948 CanLII 66, [1948] OR 579(11 June 1948), Superior Court of Justice (Ontario,Canada).
RulingAppeal allowed.
Court membership
Chief Justice: Thibaudeau Rinfret
Puisne Justices: Patrick Kerwin, Robert Taschereau, Ivan Rand, Roy Kellock, James Wilfred Estey, Charles Holland Locke, John Robert Cartwright, Gerald Fauteux
Reasons given
PluralityRand J., joined by Kellock and Fauteux JJ.
ConcurrenceKerwin J., joined by Taschereau J.
ConcurrenceEstey J.
DissentLocke J.
Rinfret C.J. and Cartwright J. took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

Noble and Wolf v Alley [1951] S.C.R. 64 is a famous Supreme Court of Canada decision where the Court struck down a restrictive covenant that restricted ownership of a section of land to "persons of the white or Caucasian race".

Contents

Case history

In 1933, Annie Noble had purchased a lot for a cottage in the Beach O' Pines area on Lake Huron. She decided in 1948 to sell the lot to Bernard Wolf. However, it was noticed that the original deed contained the following clause:

"(f) The lands and premises herein described shall never be sold, assigned, transferred, leased, rented or in any manner whatsoever alienated to, and shall never be occupied or used in any manner whatsoever by any person of the Jewish, Hebrew, Semitic, Negro or coloured race or blood, it being the intention and purpose of the Grantor, to restrict the ownership, use, occupation and enjoyment of the said recreational development, including the lands and premises herein described, to persons of the white or Caucasian race not excluded by this clause."

Though Wolf was Jewish, Noble still wanted to sell him the land and so they applied to the court to get the covenant nullified, but faced opposition from the "Pines" community.

Noble and Wolf cited the recent decision of Re Drummond Wren , [1] where the Ontario Court struck down a discriminatory covenant. However, at trial and on appeal the courts upheld the restriction.

The Supreme Court, in a six to one ruling, held that the covenant was invalid. They agreed with the lower court's dismissal of Drummond Wren and instead looked at the law of restrictive covenants and held that the language used in the restriction on alienation was too uncertain. As Rand J explained in his judgment, such covenants would need to comply with the rule expressed in Tulk v Moxhay , [2] in that they "should touch or concern the land as contradistinguished from a collateral effect." [3] As the covenant in this case was "directed not to the land or to some mode of its use, but to transfer by act of the purchaser," [4] it had to fail in that it was "impossible to set such limits to the lines of race or blood as would enable a court to say in all cases whether a proposed purchaser is or is not within the ban." [5]

Impact

While the case went through the courts, the Legislative Assembly of Ontario passed an Act that declared such restrictive covenants to be "void and of no effect," but it only applied to ones created on or after March 24, 1950, its date of Royal assent. [6]

While the covenants in the deeds constituting the community at Beach O' Pines were held to be ineffective, others created before the amendment (as long as they complied with Tulk v Moxhay) were still considered to be valid, as the Ontario Court of Appeal stated that they did not offend public policy. [7]

See also

Shelley v. Kraemer , an analogous case (but broader in its effect) decided by the United States Supreme Court in 1948.

Related Research Articles

In common law, a deed is any legal instrument in writing which passes, affirms or confirms an interest, right, or property and that is signed, attested, delivered, and in some jurisdictions, sealed. It is commonly associated with transferring (conveyancing) title to property. The deed has a greater presumption of validity and is less rebuttable than an instrument signed by the party to the deed. A deed can be unilateral or bilateral. Deeds include conveyances, commissions, licenses, patents, diplomas, and conditionally powers of attorney if executed as deeds. The deed is the modern descendant of the medieval charter, and delivery is thought to symbolically replace the ancient ceremony of livery of seisin.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">John Keiller MacKay</span> Canadian soldier, lawyer, and jurist

Lieutenant-Colonel John Keiller MacKay was a Canadian soldier, lawyer and jurist. MacKay served as the 19th lieutenant governor of Ontario from 1957 to 1963.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Grand Bend</span> Place in Ontario, Canada

Grand Bend is a community located on the shores of Lake Huron in Southwestern Ontario, Canada. It is part of the Municipality of Lambton Shores in Lambton County.

An equitable servitude is a term used in the law of real property to describe a nonpossessory interest in land that operates much like a covenant running with the land. In England and Wales the term is defunct and in Scotland it has very long been a sub-type of the Scottish legal version of servitudes, which are what English law calls easements. However covenants and equitable servitudes in most of the jurisdictions across North America, are slightly different. The usual distinction is based on the remedy plaintiff seeks and precedent will allow for the scenario in question. Where the terms are unmerged, holders of a covenant seek money damages; holders of equitable servitudes seek injunctions. The term used to exist in England widely before Tulk v Moxhay and as byproduct of the Judicature Acts became one of the fullest mergers of equity and common law in England and Wales so as to agree initially on the term "equitable covenant", then coming to be united in the term covenant save that "equitable" bears a particular meaning in English property rights since at least 1925: it means not fully compliant with registration/written formalities. If lacks legally routine formalities it is not a full legal covenant and therefore more tenuous, often only enforceable personally and against the original covenantor.

A covenant, in its most general sense and historical sense, is a solemn promise to engage in or refrain from a specified action. Under historical English common law, a covenant was distinguished from an ordinary contract by the presence of a seal. Because the presence of a seal indicated an unusual solemnity in the promises made in a covenant, the common law would enforce a covenant even in the absence of consideration. In United States contract law, an implied covenant of good faith is presumed.

Section 6 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the section of the Canadian Constitution that protects the mobility rights of Canadian citizens, and to a lesser extent that of permanent residents. By mobility rights, the section refers to the individual practice of entering and exiting Canada, and moving within its boundaries. The section is subject to the section 1 Oakes test, but cannot be nullified by the notwithstanding clause.

In Canadian constitutional law, the doctrine of paramountcy establishes that where there is a conflict between valid provincial and federal laws, the federal law will prevail and the provincial law will be inoperative to the extent that it conflicts with the federal law. Unlike interjurisdictional immunity, which is concerned with the scope of the federal power, paramountcy deals with the way in which that power is exercised.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Good faith (law)</span> Implied covenant of honesty and fair dealing in contract law

In contract law, the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is a general presumption that the parties to a contract will deal with each other honestly, fairly, and in good faith, so as to not destroy the right of the other party or parties to receive the benefits of the contract. It is implied in a number of contract types in order to reinforce the express covenants or promises of the contract.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Loren Miller (judge)</span> American judge

Loren Miller was an American journalist, civil rights activist, attorney, and judge. Miller was appointed to the Los Angeles County Superior Court by governor Edmund G. "Pat" Brown in 1964 and served until his death in 1967. Miller was a specialist in housing discrimination, whose involvement in the early stages of the Civil Rights Movement earned him a reputation as a tenacious fighter for equal housing opportunities for minorities. Miller argued some of the most historic civil rights cases ever heard before the Supreme Court of the United States. He was chief counsel before the court in the 1948 decision that led to the outlawing of racial restrictive covenants, Shelley v. Kraemer.

Beach O' Pines is a private gated community located on the shores of Lake Huron in Lambton County, Ontario, Canada. It is located immediately outside of the community of Grand Bend, Ontario, and is bordered to the northwest by Lake Huron, the southwest by the Pinery Provincial Park, the northeast by the subdivision of Southcott Pines, and the southeast by the Old Ausable Channel, Highway #21, and the subdivision of Huron Woods.

<i>R v Grant</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

R v Grant, 2009 SCC 32 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on section 9, section 10 and section 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("Charter"). The Court created a number of factors to consider when determining whether a person had been detained for the purpose of sections 9 and 10 of the Charter. The Court also created a new test for determining whether evidence obtained by a Charter breach should be excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter, replacing the Collins test.

Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case that held that racially restrictive housing covenants cannot legally be enforced.

<i>Tulk v Moxhay</i>

Tulk v Moxhay is a landmark English land law case that decided that in certain cases a restrictive covenant can "run with the land" in equity. It is the reason Leicester Square exists today.

South-Central Timber Development v. Wunnicke, 467 U.S. 82 (1984), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held unconstitutional Alaska's inclusion of a requirement that purchasers of state-owned timber process it within state before it was shipped out of state. According to a plurality opinion by Justice White, Alaska could not impose "downstream" conditions in the timber-processing market as a result of its ownership of the timber itself. The opinion summarized "[the] limit of the market-participant doctrine" as "allowing a State to impose burdens on commerce within the market in which it is a participant, but [to] go no further. The State may not impose conditions [that] have a substantial regulatory effect outside of that particular market."

<i>Sun Indalex Finance, LLC v United Steelworkers</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Sun Indalex Finance, LLC v United Steelworkers, 2013 SCC 6, arising from the Ontario courts as Re Indalex Limited, is a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada that deals with the question of priorities of claims in proceedings under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act, and how they intersect with the fiduciary duties employers have as administrators of pension plans.

Charles Augustus Tulk (1786–1849) was an English Swedenborgian and politician.

Re Drummond Wren [1945] O.R. 778 is a decision by the Ontario High Court, presided by Justice Mackay, regarding the validity of a racially motivated restrictive covenant. The Workers' Educational Association purchased the lot in East York. The covenant prohibited the land to be sold to "Jews, or persons of objectionable nationality". Drummond Wren brought forward an action to have the restrictive covenant declared invalid. Wren was the general secretary of the Workers' Educational Association. He was represented by John Cartwright and Irving Himel. J. M. Bennett appeared as legal counsel for the Canadian Jewish Congress, assisted by Bora Laskin, Jacob Finkelman, and Charles Dubin.

<i>Southcott Estates Inc v Toronto Catholic District School Board</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Southcott Estates Inc v Toronto Catholic District School Board, 2012 SCC 51, [2012] 2 SCR 675, is a landmark case of the Supreme Court of Canada in the area of commercial law, with significant impact in the areas of:

Corrigan v. Buckley, 271 U.S. 323 (1926), was a US Supreme Court case in 1926 that ruled that the racially-restrictive covenant of multiple residents on S Street NW, between 18th Street and New Hampshire Avenue, in Washington, DC, was a legally-binding document that made the selling of a house to a black family a void contract. This ruling set the precedent upholding racially restrictive covenants in Washington; soon after this ruling, racially restrictive covenants flourished around the nation. Subsequently, in Shelley v. Kraemer (1948) the court reconsidered such covenants and found that racially restrictive covenants are unenforceable.

Edward Moxhay was a Victorian shoemaker, biscuit maker and property speculator, best known for his involvement in a landmark English land law case that decided that in certain cases a covenant can "run with the land".

References

  1. Re Drummond Wren , 1945 CanLII 80 , [1945] OR 778(31 October 1945), Superior Court of Justice (Ontario,Canada)
  2. Tulk v Moxhay (1848)11 Beav 571, [1848] EWHC Ch J34, 50 ER 937 (22 December 1848)
  3. SCC, p. 69
  4. SCC, p. 69
  5. SCC, p. 70, relying on Clayton v Ramsden, [1943] AC 320, and Clavering v. Ellison(1859)7 HL 707, 11 ER 282 (10 August 1859)
  6. The Conveyancing and Law of Property Amendment Act, 1950 , S.O. 1950, c. 11
  7. Aaron, Bob (March 3, 2001). "Why racist restrictions no longer apply in land deals". Toronto Star .