Page v. Campbell

Page v. Campbell

Majority held appellant lacked the requisite interest/standing because he no longer owned land in the subdivision benefitted by the restrictive covenant; therefore he could not enforce the covenant in equity against respondents, and delay (laches) further barred mandatory relief; appeal dismissed with costs.

Citation
(1921) 61 SCR 633
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Leo Page; Respondent/defendant: Wallace Campbell and Another
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 March 1921
Procedural Posture
Action (restrictive Covenant; Injunction) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Ontario
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; Appellate Division judgment affirmed.
Legal Topics
Restrictive Covenants, Injunction, Laches, Estoppel, Standing/interest to Sue, Privity of Covenant
Source Language
English
Property Equity Civil Procedure Trusts Restrictive Covenants Injunction Laches Estoppel +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Leo Page

Appellant/plaintiff

Wallace Campbell and Another

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Action (restrictive Covenant; Injunction) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Ontario

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the original covenantee who has disposed of lands in the benefited subdivision has standing to enforce a restrictive covenant against subsequent purchasers
  2. 2 Whether the restrictive covenant runs with the land absent retention of benefited land by the covenantee
  3. 3 Whether delay/laches or estoppel bars equitable relief (mandatory injunction/demolition)

Ratio Decidendi

Majority held appellant lacked the requisite interest/standing because he no longer owned land in the subdivision benefitted by the restrictive covenant; therefore he could not enforce the covenant in equity against respondents, and delay (laches) further barred mandatory relief; appeal dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; Appellate Division judgment affirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs