The Supreme Court of Canada struck down a racially restrictive land covenant in November 1950, a ruling that ended a common way of keeping Black Canadians and other minorities out of Ontario neighbourhoods and resorts, although the court did not rest its decision on human rights.
The case, Noble and Wolf v. Alley, is usually remembered as a Jewish rights victory. The deed at its centre, however, named Black people too. According to the Law Times, the property deeds in Beach O’ Pines, a gated Lake Huron cottage community near Grand Bend, Ont., said land could not be “sold, used, occupied, rented by any person of the Jewish, Hebrew, semitic, negro race or colored blood.” The covenant added that its purpose was to restrict ownership to “persons of white or Caucasian race.”
The dispute began in 1948, when Bernard Wolf, a Russian Jewish merchant, agreed to buy a cottage from Annie Maude Noble for $6,800, the Law Times reported. His lawyer, Ted Richmond, found the covenant while searching the deed. Other owners in the development moved to enforce it.
The Ontario courts sided with the owners. A High Court judge ruled in 1948 that the covenant was legal, and the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. Chief Justice Robert Robertson wrote that “the purpose of this clause is to assure that the residents are of a class who will get along together,” the Law Times reported.
The Supreme Court of Canada disagreed. Wikipedia’s summary of the case, citing the court’s reasons, records a 6-1 decision in favour of Noble and Wolf, with the judgment dated Nov. 20, 1950. Justice Ivan Rand, writing with Justices Kellock and Fauteux, held that a restrictive covenant must “touch or concern the land” to bind later owners. This one, he found, controlled who the purchaser could be and made “impossible” determinations about racial classification. Justice Locke dissented.
The Government of Canada’s own summary of the case describes the same two grounds: the restriction ran with the owner rather than the land, and it was void for uncertainty because of its racial language. In other words, the ruling did not declare racial discrimination unlawful. It found the legal tool used to enforce it defective. That distinction mattered, because the same exclusion could in principle be redrafted.
An earlier Ontario decision had gone further. In Re Drummond Wren, decided Oct. 31, 1945, Justice John Keiller MacKay of the Ontario High Court voided a covenant that barred land sales to “Jews, or persons of objectionable nationality,” on public policy grounds, citing Canada’s commitment to the United Nations Charter. He wrote that nothing could be more calculated to deepen divisions between ethnic and religious groups than a method of land transfer that permitted segregation. The Canadian Jewish Congress backed that case, and lawyers who later became prominent judges, including Bora Laskin, were involved, according to Wikipedia’s account. Laskin also assisted the Congress in the Beach O’ Pines appeal, the Law Times reported.
The history of rights site and a University of Ottawa archive exhibit both note that covenants of this kind named Black people alongside Jewish and other groups. The exhibit says the ruling helped dismantle legal barriers that had kept Black Canadians and others from housing and from building wealth through property. That claim is the exhibit’s interpretation. This article did not find a study that measures how many Black families were turned away by covenants in Ontario, and the size of that effect remains an open question.
The Government of Canada says the decision strengthened the advocacy of groups such as the Canadian Jewish Congress and led several provinces to outlaw such covenants by the early 1950s. Discrimination in housing continued by other means, including refusals to sell or rent that were harder to challenge in court because no written covenant existed.
Beach O’ Pines remains a private, gated community. The Law Times noted that it drew wealthy American summer residents, among them former Michigan governor George Romney, who bought a cottage there in 1950.
If you find reporting like this useful, consider supporting Canada News Media, an independent Canadian newsroom with no corporate parent.
Sources: Law Times, “Romney Ontario getaway’s dark legal past”; Government of Canada, “Noble and Wolf v. Alley” (2015); Wikipedia entries on Noble v Alley and Re Drummond Wren (citing [1951] S.C.R. 64 and 1950 CanLII 13); History of Rights (historyofrights.ca); University of Ottawa, Mathieu Black Canadian History Exhibit. The Government of Canada page dates the case 1951 (the year of the law report); the judgment date used here is from Wikipedia and the Law Times.
