Post #319815

2026-02-14 00:26 UTC

#Edmonton #yeg #propertylaw nerds: New case dispensing with a restrictive covenant! I&#39;ve only read a summary so far, but this is intriguing. I wonder if this could pave a way for municipalities to legislate a way out of food deserts created by restrictive covenants? 🤔 I expect this will be appealed, and that will take a couple of years. It will be interesting to see what happens. Discuss! #LawFedi #zoning 2026 ABKB 81 (CanLII) | 2357596 Alberta Ltd v Antoniuk | CanLII https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abkb/doc/2026/2026abkb81/2026abkb81.html?resultId=603e700ea828485791ca502dec7729c8&amp;searchId=2026-02-13T17:22:58:975/80436e2d92c74fcba1d965289edff842&amp;searchUrlHash=AAAAAQARQ2FycnV0aGVycyBjYXZlYXQAAAAAAQ

Replies (1)

@AmeliasBrain@mstdn.ca 2026-02-14 01:36

@ECityMom@mstdn.ca My (non-expert) summary, for those curious but busy: The case concerns Edmonton's Glenora neighbourhood. At the time it was originally developed in 1911, a caveat/restrictive covenant was put on all property sales requiring them only to be used for residential homes, 1 per lot, no business, with required setbacks from street & between houses (but duplexes OK & divided lots if setbacks preserved). Some parts of the neighbourhood are now considered heritage value. On a site in Glenora near Stony Plain Road & the new LRT, the developer filing suit would like to build apartment blocks. The city zoned it for medium-rise apartments in 2022 & is generally pro-densification there. The respondents are nearby homeowners with the caveat on their deeds. The suit is based on: section 48(4) of the [Land Titles Act], which allows the Court to discharge a caveat [that] conflicts with the provisions of a [municipal] land use bylaw or statutory plan, and the modification or discharge is in the public interest.

Open ##3819795