Restrictive Covenants vs. Reality: Why B.C. Homeowners Are Losing the Battle Against Densification in Court

Covenants, Courts, and the Changing Face of B.C.

In the ongoing war over British Columbia’s housing future, a new battleground has emerged: the courts.

Across Metro Vancouver and beyond, homeowners determined to block densification projects—townhouses, duplexes, and multi-unit dwellings—are increasingly leaning on an obscure but powerful legal weapon: restrictive covenants. These century-old property agreements, initially crafted to preserve the quiet suburban life of B.C.’s early neighbourhoods, now face unprecedented tests.

But in 2025, homeowners who once saw the courthouse as a viable line of defense against density are discovering a harsh reality: the law, public opinion, and political momentum have turned decisively against them.

This investigative deep dive explores why restrictive covenants, historically ironclad, are rapidly crumbling as B.C. pushes toward greater density—and why homeowners find themselves powerless, frustrated, and facing costly defeat after costly defeat.

Restrictive Covenants—A Powerful but Dated Tool

To understand today’s legal battles, one must first grasp restrictive covenants. These private agreements, often embedded in land titles, stipulate how property can or cannot be used. Commonly established decades ago, covenants have traditionally banned multi-family units, limited building heights, or restricted property subdivisions.

Their original purpose was simple: preserve the quiet, single-family neighbourhood character cherished by suburbanites and urban elites alike. For decades, covenants worked effectively—homes stayed modest, subdivisions sparse, and communities comfortably homogenous.

But as housing affordability deteriorated into crisis, these once-forgotten agreements became potent weapons for homeowners opposing new development. Suddenly, lawyers scoured land titles, and restrictive covenants became a household term across B.C.

But if homeowners thought covenants would remain forever enforceable, 2025 delivered an abrupt wake-up call.

Densification vs. Covenants—The Legal Storm Hits B.C.

In recent years, B.C.’s provincial government intensified efforts to boost housing supply dramatically. Densification became public policy. Duplexes, townhouses, and even small apartment blocks popped up in historically single-family areas.

Homeowners, citing restrictive covenants, headed to court. Dozens of cases quickly emerged across the Lower Mainland—from North Vancouver to Burnaby, Richmond, Surrey, and even Vancouver’s posh West Side. At stake: neighbourhood identities, property values, and deeply-held perceptions of community control.

Early rulings favored homeowners. Covenants were private contracts, the courts reasoned—legally binding documents deserving strict enforcement. Communities rejoiced; developers scrambled.

Yet by 2024, the legal tide turned sharply.

Landmark Court Rulings Change the Game

A watershed case arrived in late 2024 in Vancouver’s Shaughnessy neighborhood. Homeowners opposed a four-unit townhouse project, citing a 1928 covenant mandating only single-family homes. Initially successful at trial, homeowners faced a devastating reversal at the B.C. Court of Appeal.

The appeal ruling was blunt:

“Restrictive covenants cannot indefinitely block public policy objectives of creating diverse, affordable housing. When community interests overwhelmingly favour housing supply, private agreements must yield.”

The Supreme Court of Canada declined to hear further appeal, sending shockwaves province-wide.

This ruling became the cornerstone of future decisions. Within months, multiple lower courts invoked this precedent, consistently overruling restrictive covenants.

By mid-2025, homeowner victories became exceedingly rare, signaling that the courts were no longer willing to enforce covenants that opposed the greater public interest in housing.

Why the Courts Shifted—Inside the Judicial Reasoning

Why did the B.C. courts reverse decades of legal tradition?

The reason is twofold: public necessity and shifting interpretations of “public interest.”

First, the affordability crisis radically altered perceptions. Judges, who traditionally respected the sanctity of private covenants, began recognizing the urgent need to address housing shortages and affordability challenges. The courts increasingly ruled that covenants cannot frustrate overarching public policy goals of densification and affordability.

Second, judges increasingly viewed restrictive covenants as outdated relics reflecting exclusionary social values. Courts began interpreting these covenants as tools preserving economic exclusivity and housing segregation—concepts now considered fundamentally incompatible with contemporary public policy.

This judicial shift, reinforced by powerful political backing from Victoria, meant homeowners faced an uphill battle in every new case.

Political Pressure & Provincial Intervention

Behind the judicial shift lies powerful political momentum. Premier David Eby’s government aggressively prioritized housing production and densification, sending a clear policy signal to courts and municipalities alike.

Provincial legislation, such as the 2023 Housing Supply Act, explicitly emphasized rapid densification. The province repeatedly intervened in court cases, filing arguments against homeowners and in favour of development projects.

These interventions significantly influenced judges’ perspectives. Courts, sensitive to government policies, recognized that ruling against densification would contradict provincial housing strategies.

One Vancouver real estate lawyer put it bluntly:

“The province didn’t outlaw covenants explicitly. They made them irrelevant. Judges took note.”

Developers Celebrate, Homeowners Fume

Developers swiftly exploited this new legal landscape. Projects previously shelved due to restrictive covenants suddenly became viable. Across Metro Vancouver, previously impossible housing projects moved forward at remarkable speed.

Developers celebrated. Their long-held frustration—legal uncertainty and delays caused by covenant disputes—evaporated almost overnight.

Meanwhile, homeowners felt betrayed. For decades, they assumed restrictive covenants provided permanent protection against density. Suddenly, expensive legal battles ended in swift defeat, leaving communities feeling powerless, angry, and abandoned.

West Vancouver homeowner Jim McNeil summed up the mood:

“We believed covenants mattered. Now the courts tell us they don’t. Where does that leave us?”

Community Outrage—Beyond the Courtroom

Frustrated by court defeats, homeowners turned to protests, petitions, and local politics. Across Vancouver, yard signs appeared, reading: “Stop Density. Respect Covenants.” Community meetings overflowed, tensions flared, and local councils faced mounting anger.

But communities soon discovered municipal politicians lacked appetite or ability to resist provincial pressure. Councillors who opposed densification were swiftly challenged by pro-density candidates funded by developers and housing advocates.

Unable to influence courts or councils, homeowners found themselves increasingly isolated. One Burnaby resident lamented:

“We thought we had legal protection. Then we thought we had municipal support. Now we have neither.”

Implications for Housing Affordability—Promise or False Hope?

While provincial leaders tout densification as the ultimate affordability solution, critics argue the reality is far more nuanced.

Urban planners warn density alone won’t guarantee affordability. Without targeted policies—rent control, inclusionary zoning, or public ownership—multi-unit housing often ends up priced beyond middle-income earners’ reach.

And while court rulings may help supply overall, they often spark speculative buying. Investors rush to buy single-family lots earmarked for densification, driving land prices higher, ironically reducing affordability for end-users.

In short, density may ease supply constraints, but whether it truly helps middle-class affordability remains fiercely debated.