Murphy, Murphy & Sans Investment v Stanhope Cape

canada, canadian, case law, court opinion, canlii, pescad, 2026peca14, 2026 peca 14 (canlii), 2026, peca, 14, (canlii), s1-ca-1520, 2026, property, interests in land, covenants running with land, positive covenants in subdivision context, water infrastructure and common areas, whether lot owners could require transfer based on subdivision documentation, developer’s promise characterised as contingent, no covenant established in favour of lot owners, appeal dismissed, property, covenants at common law, benefit running with dominant land, whether a positive covenant at common law could be enforced against the original covenantor, privity of contract and requirement for dominant and servient lands, government as original covenantee with no line of succession to lot owners, common law basis rejected, ground of appeal dismissed, statutory interpretation, planning act, s. 8(3), subdivision agreement, effects of covenants, whether s. 8(3) requirements for an enforceable positive covenant were met, covenant must be between developer and owners and expressed to run with the land, no reviewable error in trial judge’s interpretation and application, appeal dismissed, property, deeds, interpretation, “subject to” subdivision agreement, whether deed language created a covenant requiring transfer of water infrastructure and common areas, reference treated as notice of being subject to the agreement, contingent right not crystallized and no prohibition on amendment, no reviewable error, ground of appeal dismissed, contracts, privity of contract, third party beneficiaries, contingent rights, whether third, party beneficiary rights arose under the unamended subdivision agreement, fraser river pile & dredge ltd. v. can, dive services ltd. test applied, benefit remained inchoate until sale of last lot and agreement was amended before crystallization, no third, party rights, appeal dismissed