Your Lawyer’s Report on Title Quotes a Clause Barring Sale to a Certain Race. Does It Still Bind Anyone in Ontario?
Plenty of older GTA subdivisions still carry a mid-century racial covenant somewhere in the chain of title. Reading it in a title search is one thing. Whether it has any legal force is a very different thing.
A racist clause is still printed on my title and my lawyer just quoted it — does it still bind me, and does it change anything about buying the house?
It binds no one. A racial covenant on an Ontario title stops nobody from buying, occupying, or reselling the home — the sale in front of you is unaffected. The reason is s.22 of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, which makes such a covenant void and of no effect. The counter-intuitive part: void is not the same as erased, so the words can still appear in a title search even though they carry zero legal force. One qualifier a lawyer will check — by its wording, s.22 voids only covenants entered into after March 24, 1950; anything from on or before that date sits outside its text and is judged case-by-case.
Source: Ontario Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.34, s.22 (e-Laws, verified 2026-08-23); general anti-discrimination principle under the Ontario Human Rights Code
There is a particular silence in a lawyer’s office when the report on title reaches the racial covenant. The wording is blunt and it sounds addressed to a person — yet it was almost never written for the buyer now holding the paper. A developer drafted it generations ago, and it has been riding along on the title documents ever since, outliving both the people who wrote it and the world that tolerated it. What a buyer needs in that moment is not outrage and not a rushed fix — it is one date. How Ontario law treats these words turns entirely on when the covenant was entered into, and that single fact is the thing most write-ups on the subject quietly get wrong.
So this piece stays close to the practical questions: what this line actually is, why it is attached to a house you are about to buy, and what — if anything — it changes about the deal in front of you.
→
→
→
→
The jolt in the report — and the first thing to pull apart
Your lawyer’s report on title is a plain summary of what is registered against the property. When one of those registered lines is a racial covenant, the natural move is to read “it is still here” as “it still governs me.” That is the wrong equation. The clause being visible in the register and the clause having legal teeth are two independent facts in Ontario — and for the vast majority of these covenants, the second fact is simply: none. Before we get to why, it helps to know how a house you are buying in 2026 ended up carrying language written by a developer generations ago.
How this language got into GTA chains of title
These clauses were rarely one seller’s doing. In the first half of the last century, developers laying out new subdivisions routinely wrote “restrictive covenants” into the deeds for an entire tract at once — and some, catering to the prejudices of the day, added a uniform line barring sale, rental, or occupation by people of a named race, creed, colour, or origin. That original wording then travelled with the land, deed to deed, long after the homes changed hands many times over and the neighbourhood became anything but uniform. So when the words surface on an old GTA title today, they are usually not aimed at you — they are undisturbed sediment from a chain of title no one ever cleaned off the paper.
The dividing line: the date the covenant was entered into
⚠️The single detail most worth getting right: by its own wording, s.22 voids only covenants entered into after March 24, 1950. Many older Ontario titles carry covenants that predate that date — those sit outside the literal reach of s.22 and were historically dealt with through other legal routes. Do not treat “all racial covenants are void under s.22” as the universal answer; which route applies is a case-specific call for your real estate lawyer.
Void by statute, still on the register — mind the gap
This is the part that actually helps you. Section 22 makes a qualifying covenant void “from the start,” but it does not order the words scrubbed out of the land register. The register is a cumulative historical record; a covenant the law has stripped of effect commonly stays visible as a historical entry. So the buyer, the seller, and some future buyer decades from now can all still read it in a title search. The statute settled whether the clause has force; it did not, in the same stroke, settle whether the clause is still legible. Once you see that gap, you stop mistaking “still visible” for “still binding.”
ℹ️If you want the words physically struck from the register, whether that is available, which procedure applies, and whether the legal and registration cost is worth it are case-specific questions for your real estate lawyer to verify first-hand. This article deliberately gives no step-by-step removal procedure — the right mechanism depends on details like when and how the covenant was registered. For most residential buyers, since the clause is already void, there is usually no need to disturb it at all.
💡 My own read: finding this line is a cue to do two calm things, not to panic and not to rush to “get it deleted.” Check the date it was entered into, then let your real estate lawyer characterize it in one line in the report on title. For almost every residential buyer, its real effect on your ability to own, occupy, and one day resell the home is zero. It is history worth remembering — and history with no legal teeth left.
Does it touch price, financing, or resale?
Practically, no. Because the covenant is unenforceable, it is not a real encumbrance in the title-defect sense: it does not block closing, it does not sink a mortgage approval, and it does not cost you a qualified buyer when you later sell. In practice the purchaser’s lawyer notes in the report on title that the clause is void under s.22 (or explains the unenforceability of an earlier one) and the deal proceeds normally. The covenants that genuinely warrant a longer conversation with your lawyer are the ones that are still valid — private restrictions on building height, facade, or use, say. Those are a different subject entirely and should not be lumped in with a defunct racial clause.
The wider backdrop: a general bar on discrimination
Pull back and the reason a racial covenant is a dead letter today is not only s.22 acting alone. Ontario’s human-rights framework (the Ontario Human Rights Code) sets a broader principle: a person has the right to contract, and to obtain accommodation, on equal terms without discrimination on grounds such as race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, or creed. A clause insisting land be sold only to — or lived in only by — a particular race runs against that principle at its root. So even setting the specific s.22 voiding aside, this kind of arrangement has no foothold in Ontario’s current legal order. (Exact section references turn on how the point is raised in a given case; have your lawyer confirm any citation.)
Restrictive Covenants on Commercial Title in Ontario: Old Use Restrictions, and Whether They Still Bind You →A Certificate of Pending Litigation on Your Title: What It Means Mid-Transaction, for Sellers and Buyers Alike →Putting Your Spouse on Title in Ontario: What the Land Transfer Tax Exemption Actually Covers (and What It Doesn’t) →Closing Costs in Ontario →
Frequently Asked Questions
Should a covenant like this make me walk away from an otherwise good house?
No. Because the covenant is void and unenforceable, it is not a real encumbrance — it does not block closing, weaken your ownership, or cost you a buyer when you resell. The sensible step is to have your lawyer characterize it on your specific title in the report on title, not to let old wording talk you out of a home that is otherwise right for you.
Will my lender or my lawyer let this hold up the closing?
It should not. An unenforceable covenant does not sink a mortgage approval or stall a closing. In practice the purchaser’s lawyer simply notes in the report on title that the clause is void under s.22 (or explains why an earlier one cannot be enforced), and the deal proceeds on its normal timeline.
Does it actually matter when the covenant was written?
Yes — that date is the whole pivot. By its wording, s.22 voids only covenants entered into after March 24, 1950. A covenant from on or before that date falls outside the text of s.22, so a lawyer assesses it case-by-case through other legal routes. Either way the practical result is the same: a racial restriction cannot be enforced today.
If it carries no force, do I need to get it taken off the title?
Usually not. Whether removal is even available, which procedure fits, and whether the cost is worth it are case-specific questions for your real estate lawyer to verify first-hand — this article gives no removal steps on purpose, because the right mechanism depends on details like the covenant’s date and how it was registered. For most residential buyers, a void clause is simply left where it sits.
Why is a clause like this still allowed to sit on the public record?
Because being struck of legal force and being physically erased are two different things. Section 22 takes away the covenant’s effect but does not order it removed from the land register, which is a cumulative historical record. So the words stay legible as a past entry and can turn up in a title search decades later — legible, but binding on no one.
Arthur Zhao
Real Estate Broker · FRI · ABR · SRS · PSA · MCNE · E-PRO · CLHMS & GUILD Elite · REAIS
VP & Branch Manager, Bay Street Group Inc.
Get expert answers on buying, selling, and renting in the GTA
Discover more from GTA Real Estate Broker | Arthur Zhao
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
