B.C. Supreme Court draws line on Coquitlam subdivision case

Despite some concerns from the neighbours, a Chineside property owner will be able to subdivide their lot, following a B.C. Supreme Court judgement that dealt with a 64-year-old housing covenant.

Located on Thermal Drive near Como Lake Avenue, the 59-lot Chineside subdivision dates back to 1959 and includes a restrictive covenant that forbids subdivisions.

The Developer of the neighbourhood could approve a subdivision.

“However, the Developer was dissolved in 1976, and no longer owns any of the lots,” noted Justice Barbara Norell in her judgment.

The property owner, a B.C. numbered company, argued the covenant was obsolete and that it would be reasonable to subdivide the property and build a single-family home on each parcel, given that it was originally two lots.

In 1963, a couple consolidated lots 58 and 59 of the subdivision. The current property owner acquired the lot in 2021.

However, some of the Chineside neighbours expressed concern about a ruling that would render the entire covenant obsolete.

The court has the power to modify or cancel a covenant if there have been significant changes in the land or neighbourhood, if the covenant is obsolete, or if reasonable use of the land would be impeded.

The covenant is a “safeguard for the essential character of the neighbourhood,” countered a group of neighbours, who noted that the rules prevent amalgamations, large developmens and commercial operations.

Those neighbours, however, did not oppose a modification to the covenant that would allow for the subdivision.

“They accept that the lot is unique in so far as it was originally two lots that was amalgamated into one,” Norell wrote.

However, a different group of neighbours argued the entire covenant was obsolete, contending that a number of the lots within the subdivision had secondary suites, which the covenant does not permit.

However, Norell ultimately concluded that cancelling the entire covenant would be premature.

The subdivision would be a “reasonable use of the land,” Norell wrote, adding that impeding that subdivision would not offer any practical benefit to other lot owners.

The City of Coquitlam “does not oppose cancellation or modification” of the covenant, according to the ruling.

Norell ultimately opted to keep the covenant in place but including an exception that allows for the subdivision.