Re Drummond Wren

Last updated

Re Drummond Wren [1945] O.R. 778 (Ont. H.C.) 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. [1] 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. [2]

Contents

Ruling

Justice Mackay found the covenant to be invalid as a violation of public policy. He cited the recent signing of the United Nations Charter by the United Nations, to which Canada was a signatory, as a determining factor for public policy. He went on to state:

"...It appears to me to be a moral duty, at least, to lend aid to all forces of cohesion, and similarly to repel all fissiparous tendencies which would imperil national unity..." [3]

Justice Mackay further stated: "...nothing could be more calculated to create or deepen divisions between existing religious and ethnic groups in the Province, or in this Country, than the sanction of a method of land transfer which would permit the segregation areas, or conversely, would exclude particular groups from particular business or residential areas."

Justice Mackay confirmed that the covenant was an improper restraint on alienation. Moreover, the wording in the covenant was uncertain, as the phrase "persons of objectionable nationality" lacked legal meaning.

Aftermath

The Michigan Supreme Court in 1947 cited Drummond Wren in a decision finding that a property covenant against African Americans was invalid. [4]

Shortly after the case was considered, but not followed, by Justice Schroeder in Noble v. Alley .

In 1979, Justice Bertha Wilson, then at the Ontario Court of Appeal, cited Drummond Wren in the Bhadauria case. [5] Justice Wilson recognized a tort of discrimination. In 1981, the Supreme Court of Canada overturned Justice Wilson's ruling, finding instead no tort of discrimination in Canadian law. [6]

Related Research Articles

Law is the set of rules and principles (laws) by which a society is governed, through enforcement by governmental authorities. Law is also the field that concerns the creation and administration of laws, and includes any and all legal systems.

<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.

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.

Canadian constitutional law is the area of Canadian law relating to the interpretation and application of the Constitution of Canada by the courts. All laws of Canada, both provincial and federal, must conform to the Constitution and any laws inconsistent with the Constitution have no force or effect.

<i>Noble v Alley</i> Supreme Court of Canada 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".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Canadian tort law</span> Aspect of Canadian law

Canadian tort law is composed of two parallel systems: a common law framework outside Québec and a civil law framework within Québec. Outside Québec, Canadian tort law originally derives from that of England and Wales but has developed distinctly since Canadian Confederation in 1867 and has been influenced by jurisprudence in other common law jurisdictions. Meanwhile, while private law as a whole in Québec was originally derived from that which existed in France at the time of Québec's annexation into the British Empire, it was overhauled and codified first in the Civil Code of Lower Canada and later in the current Civil Code of Quebec, which codifies most elements of tort law as part of its provisions on the broader law of obligations. As most aspects of tort law in Canada are the subject of provincial jurisdiction under the Canadian Constitution, tort law varies even between the country's common law provinces and territories.

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.

<i>Société des Acadiens v Association of Parents</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Société des Acadiens v Association of Parents is a Supreme Court of Canada decision on minority language rights under section 19(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The majority of the Court held that in civil cases in the New Brunswick courts, the parties have the right to use either French or English in all submissions and pleadings. However, they do not have a right to have the matter heard by a judge who understands them in the language they choose to speak. It is sufficient if there is simultaneous translation. In addition to the majority decision, two other justices of the Court held that the parties did have the right to be heard and understood by the judge in the language of their choice, but on the facts of the case, that standard was met.

Within case law, Freeman-Maloy v Marsden was a Canadian court case that revolves around a plaintiff, York University student Daniel Freeman-Maloy, who held two protests at York University regarding the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, disrupting classes. In response Lorna Marsden, president of York University, suspended Freeman-Maloy for three years without a tribunal hearing. Freeman-Maloy applied to the courts for judicial review of Marsden's decision.

<i>Dobson (Litigation guardian of) v Dobson</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Dobson v Dobson, [1999] 2 SCR 753 was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of Canada on a pregnant woman's legal duties in tort law. It was the first time the Supreme Court of Canada had to consider this issue. The majority of the Court found that tort claims cannot be brought against women for negligence toward the fetus during pregnancy.

<i>Tolofson v Jensen</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Tolofson v Jensen, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 1022 is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on conflict of laws in tort. The Court held that the primary determiner in selecting a country's law in tort should be the lex loci. The case was decided with Lucas v Gagnon.

<i>Seneca College v Bhadauria</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Seneca College v Bhadauria, [1981] 2 SCR 181 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on civil rights and tort law. The Court ruled that there can be no common law tort of discrimination.

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.

Michael Moldaver is a former Canadian judge. He was a puisne justice on the Supreme Court of Canada from his 2011 appointment by former Prime Minister Stephen Harper until his retirement in 2022. Before his elevation to the nation's top court, he served as a judge at the Ontario Superior Court of Justice and the Court of Appeal for Ontario for over 20 years. A former criminal lawyer, Moldaver is considered an expert in both Canadian criminal law and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In law, wrongful dismissal, also called wrongful termination or wrongful discharge, is a situation in which an employee's contract of employment has been terminated by the employer, where the termination breaches one or more terms of the contract of employment, or a statute provision or rule in employment law. Laws governing wrongful dismissal vary according to the terms of the employment contract, as well as under the laws and public policies of the jurisdiction.

Malliha Wilson is a Tamil Canadian lawyer who served as the Assistant Deputy Attorney General of the Government of Ontario from April 2008 to November 2016.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Benjamin Alarie</span> Canadian law professor (born 1977)

Benjamin Alarie is a Canadian jurist, law professor, and entrepreneur. He serves as Professor at the University of Toronto Faculty of Law, where he also holds the Osler Chair in Business Law. He is an author of many publications in the domain of taxation and constitutional law with respect to issues of taxation and fiscal federalism. Alarie is co-founder and CEO of Blue J, a legal software company based in Toronto, Canada.

James W. St.G. Walker is a Canadian professor of history at the University of Waterloo, and a historian of human rights and racism.

References

  1. ↑ "How restrictive contracts and bigotry lingered in Toronto real estate". The Toronto Star. 28 December 2017.
  2. ↑ James W. St. G. Walker, "Race," Rights and the Law in the Supreme Court of Canada: Historical Case Studies (Wilfrid Laurier University Press and Osgoode Society for Canadian Legal History, 1997)
  3. ↑ Rotman, Elman & Gall (2008). Constitutional Law Cases, Commentary and Principles. Thomson Carswell. p. 738.
  4. ↑ Sipes v. McGhee, 316 Mich 614 (1947); James W. St. G. Walker, "Race," Rights and the Law in the Supreme Court of Canada: Historical Case Studies (Wilfrid Laurier University Press and Osgoode Society for Canadian Legal History, 1997) at Chapter 4
  5. ↑ Seneca College v. Bhadauria, 1979 CanLII 71 (ON CA)
  6. ↑ Seneca College v. Bhadauria, [1981] 2 SCR 181



This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.