the court’s assessment of expert appraisal evidence. That may be a factor for consideration, and in some cases an important factor, but it is not determinative. The
applicant had not established that its proposed redevelopment of the site most
likely would result in an increase in value of the respondent’s lands, and even if it
had established that fact, it could not be concluded from that fact alone that the
restrictive covenants were so unsuitable as to be of no value and that their assertion by the respondent would be vexatious. There was evidence that the restrictive
covenants remained of value to the respondent.
George (Re) (1926), 59 O.L.R. 574,  O.J. No. 72,  1 D.L.R. 155 (C.A.);
Miller and Lawrie (Re),  O.J. No. 1441, 1978 CarswellOnt 2712 (H.C.J.);
Ontario Lime Co. (Re),  O.J. No. 505,  1 D.L.R. 765 (C.A.); Remicorp
Industries Inc. v. Metrolinx (2017), 138 O.R. (3d) 109,  O.J. No. 2805, 2017
ONCA 443, 414 D.L.R. (4th) 611, 83 R.P.R. (5th) 15, 279 A.C. W.S. (3d) 653; Silver
Seven Corporate Centre Inc. v. 2871220 Canada Ltd.,  O.J. No. 4651, 2017
ONSC 5091, 90 R.P.R. (5th) 147, 285 A.C.W.S. (3d) 430 (S.C.J.); Van Bork v.
William Carson Holdings Ltd.,  O.J. No. 4523, 80 O. T.C. 40, 83 A.C. W.S. (3d)
692 (Gen. Div.); Wainfleet (Township) (Re),  O.J. No. 183,  O. T.C. 49,
111 A.C. W.S. (3d) 363 (S.C.J.), consd
Other cases referred to
Beardmore (Re),  O.R. 526,  O.J. No. 256,  4 D.L.R. 562,
 O. W.N. 479 (C.A.)
Statutes referred to
Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.34, s. 61(1) [as am.]
Rules and regulations referred to
Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, rule 57.01(1)
APPLICATION for an order deleting restrictive covenants from
William A. Chalmers, for applicant.
Patrick G. Duffy and Michael A. Currie, for respondent
2748355 Canada Inc.
Raymond M. Slattery, for respondent RI Vaughan Ltd.
CAVANAGH J.: —
 The applicant, Icona Hospitality Inc. (“Icona”), wishes to
redevelop lands that it purchased in 2005 from the respondent
2748355 Canada Inc. (“274 Canada”). At the time of the sale, the
parties entered into an agreement that includes restrictive covenants. Icona requires the deletion of the restrictive covenants in
order to complete its proposed redevelopment.
 Icona brings this application pursuant to s. 61(1) of the
Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.34
(“CLPA”) for an order deleting the restrictive covenants from