by operation of the recording statutes was discussed, at pp. 56-57
of the report, as follows:
The Land Titles Act [then R.S.O. 1980, c. 230, s. 118( 8)] provides that a regis-
tered restriction that is for a fixed period may be deleted from the register at
any time after ten years from the expiration of the period.
Until 1979, the Act [then R.S.O. 1970, c. 234, s. 129( 9)] provided that a
restrictive covenant that is not limited as to time could be deleted from the
register upon application by any person interested in the land at any time
after forty years after registration of the instrument containing the covenant.
However, by an amendment in that year [The Land Titles Amendment Act,
S.O. 1979, c. 93 s. 34, now the Land Titles Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L. 5, s. 119( 9)],
such a covenant is deemed to have expired forty years after registration and
may be deleted by the land registrar, presumably without notice. The effect of
this provision is that, subject to the action of the land registrar in deleting the
covenant, a restrictive covenant under the Land Titles system expires automatically after forty years.
[ 40] Although the commission recommended that The Land Titles Act be amended to permit the renewal of a land obligation
registered under that Act, to date that recommendation has not
been implemented by the legislature.
[ 41] The foregoing history reveals that as long ago as 1952 the
legislation provided for the removal of a restrictive covenant from
the register when it expired by its terms. In 1962, the legislature
took the next step of permitting a party to apply for the removal
of a restrictive covenant 40 years after its registration, if the covenant contained no period or date fixed for its expiry. The 1979
amendment went even further, such that a restrictive covenant is
now deemed to have expired 40 years after its registration where
it contains no period or date for its expiry.
[ 42] The history of the legislation therefore reveals a progression over the years, in part to bring the land titles system into
alignment with the registry system and to facilitate the predominance of the land titles system. The most recent amendments
make the expiry of such a covenant automatic, with the only
formality being the removal of registration of the spent covenant
[ 43] This interpretation of the Act is consistent with the plain
and ordinary meaning of the words in s. 119( 9) and gives additional support for my earlier conclusion that the covenants are
caught by the express language of s. 119( 9) and thus are deemed
to have expired on March 3, 2006.
Conclusion and Disposition
[ 44] Based on the foregoing analysis, I reach the following con-