Noble et al. v. Alley

Noble et al. v. Alley

Majority held the racial covenant was unenforceable: it did not properly touch or concern the land as an equitable servitude and, on its true interpretation, constituted a restraint on alienation and was void for uncertainty because the lines of race or blood could not be sufficiently defined; therefore it was not a valid objection to title and the appeal was allowed.

Citation
[1951] SCR 64
Parties
Appellant (vendor): Annie Maud Noble; Appellant (purchaser): Bernard Wolf; Respondents (owners in Development): W.A. Alley et al.
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 November 1950
Procedural Posture
Appeal / On Appeal From the Court of Appeal for Ontario to the Supreme Court of Canada (final Hearing)
Outcome
Appeal allowed.
Legal Topics
Restrictive Covenants, Racial Covenants, Certainty, Restraint on Alienation, Tulk V. Moxhay Doctrine, Public Policy
Source Language
English
Property Law Equity Restrictive Covenants Racial Covenants Certainty Restraint on Alienation Tulk V. Moxhay Doctrine Public Policy

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Annie Maud Noble

Appellant (vendor)

Bernard Wolf

Appellant (purchaser)

W.A. Alley et al.

Respondents (owners in Development)

Procedural Posture

Appeal / On Appeal From the Court of Appeal for Ontario to the Supreme Court of Canada (final Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a covenant prohibiting sale or occupation by persons of specified races is enforceable against landowners
  2. 2 Whether the covenant touches or concerns the land so as to be enforceable in equity under Tulk v. Moxhay
  3. 3 Whether the covenant is an unlawful restraint on alienation

Ratio Decidendi

Majority held the racial covenant was unenforceable: it did not properly touch or concern the land as an equitable servitude and, on its true interpretation, constituted a restraint on alienation and was void for uncertainty because the lines of race or blood could not be sufficiently defined; therefore it was not a valid objection to title and the appeal was allowed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs to the appellants in this Court and in the Court of Appeal for Ontario.
  • No costs of the original motions in the Supreme Court of Ontario.