The City’s Improper Use of Direct Control to Defeat Restrictive
CovenantsCalgary City Council has started to use Direct Control (DC) zoning to help developers remove Restrictive Covenants (RCs) in established communities. This practice threatens the contractual rights that preserve neighbourhood character and continuity—rights many homeowners relied on when purchasing their homes. Instead of respecting those agreements, Council is creating artificial “conflicts” to override covenants without the study, consultation, compensation, or public-interest justification that courts have said are required. Essentially, the City is putting its “thumb on the scale” to help developers remove restrictive covenants meant to protect neighbourhoods.
On July 16, 2025, Calgary City Council approved four site-specific Direct Control (DC) rezonings, including parcels in Bankview. Unlike ordinary zoning, DC districts allow Council to create custom rules for a property. In this case, one stated reason for rezoning was to remove a “burdensome” restrictive covenant (RC) that limits lots to single detached homes. By rezoning to DC, Council created a conflict between the covenant and the bylaw—opening the door for a developer to ask the courts to discharge the RC under the Land Titles Act. The proposed development could have been undertaken under the existing zoning, but the change was undertaken to create a conflict with the RC. The existence of such a conflict is a prerequisite to being able to seek removal of the RC under the provisions of the Land Titles Act. The re-zoning was not required to meet a necessary zoning need but was undertaken to create a conflict with the RCin order to create an argument for removal.
The developer is expected to rely on Howse v Calgary (City) (2022 ABQB 551; 2023 ABCA 379), where the courts discharged a covenant in Banff Trail. However, in Howse, the conflict arose from decades of planning, consultation, and investment in transit-oriented redevelopment around the C-Train. The courts emphasized that covenants remain enforceable unless a true conflict exists and the bylaw advances a genuine public interest.
By contrast, the Bankview rezoning appears designed only to create a conflict. There is no evidence of long-term planning, extensive consultation, or a compelling public interest objective such as transit-oriented development. Instead, Council relied on recently adopted policies—pushed through despite strong public opposition—to justify the change. This raises serious concerns that DC zoning is being misused as a tool to undermine RCs, rather than to implement thoughtful community planning.
Key Takeaways
RCs remain valid: Restrictive covenants can only be discharged when a bylaw creates a genuine conflict and the court finds removal is in the public interest.
DC zoning is exceptional: Direct Control is meant for unique, site-specific circumstances. In Howse, it was used to advance long-standing transit-oriented plans, supported by decades of consultation and investment.
Planning evidence matters: Courts look for clear planning history, meaningful public input, and a demonstrated public interest. A DC bylaw passed simply to create conflict with an RC does not meet those standards.
Concerns about the use of DC’s to Create a Conflict as used in Bankview
Unlike Banff Trail, the Bankview rezoning was not built on years of planning or broad consultation, nor did it pursue a clear public-interest goal like transit-oriented development. Instead, Council used DC zoning mainly to trigger a conflict with the RC. The “policy” cited in support was only recently adopted and had faced strong public opposition. This suggests the move was designed more to nullify covenants than to pursue genuine planning goals, raising doubts about whether courts should accept it as legitimate.
Why this matters to you
Restrictive covenants protect neighbourhood character by setting clear, uniform rules—often the reason people choose to buy in covenant-protected communities. If Council can easily use rezoning to sidestep them, homeowners could suddenly face density or uses they never expected. Protecting RCs is about safeguarding both the value of your home and the stability of the community you invested in.
Write Your Representatives - Templates
-
To Premier Danielle Smith
Subject: Safeguarding our neighbourhood’s Restrictive Covenant
Dear Premier Smith,
I am a homeowner in a Calgary neighbourhood that is protected by a Restrictive Covenant (RC) limiting each lot to a single (or semi-) detached home. I chose this community for a range of reasons, but largely because the historical planning, in combination with the covenant promised a stable, consistent and predictable neighbourhood character. With the approval of “blanket-upzoning” in 2024, I am now deeply concerned that Calgary City Council is using Direct Control (DC) zoning to sidestep these privately registered agreements.
Under Alberta’s Land Titles Act, an RC remains enforceable unless it meets a two-part test: it must irreconcilably conflict with a municipal bylaw, and a court must find its discharge to be in the public interest. In the recent Howse v Calgary (City) case, the courts upheld the removal of a covenant only after decades of planning, extensive public consultation and a clear rationale for transit-oriented densification. By contrast, a recent Calgary Council decision to rezone an assembled parcel in the Bankview community seems to be an attempt to “manufacture conflict” – creating a conflict to deliberately frustrate the private and lawful planning principles associated with RCs. If municipal councils can nullify covenants in this way, homeowners like me will lose the protections we relied upon when making our largest personal investment.
I appreciate your government’s commitment to protecting property rights. The recent property rights amendments to the Alberta Bill of Rights recognize and protect the right to own and enjoy the property that we’ve worked so hard for. I respectfully ask that you direct your ministers to ensure that municipalities respect RCs, and adopt amendments to clarify both the Land Titles Act and the Municipal Government Act to prevent misuse of DC zoning simply to create a conflict, and take whatever steps are necessary to uphold the rule of law. This would reassure thousands of homeowners that the contractual rights that are embedded in RCs are given due and proper consideration and that associated neighbourhoods remain secure.
Thank you for considering this request and for your leadership on property rights.
-
To Minister of Municipal Affairs, Dan Williams
Subject: Protecting Restrictive Covenants from misuse of Direct Control zoning
Dear Minister Williams,
I am writing as a homeowner who purchased in a restrictive covenant-controlled neighbourhood because I wanted the certainty of a consistent community. Calgary City Council’s recent rezoning of a Bankview community property to Direct Control (DC) - apparently to remove the covenant—has left me worried that my property rights under Alberta’s Land Titles Act and the Bill of Rights could be eroded without consultation, compensation or a demonstrated public-interest need.
In Howse v Calgary (City), the courts made clear that a covenant may only be discharged when there is a genuine conflict with a bylaw and when long-term planning and public interest justify it. The recent Bankview decision by the Calgary City Council does not appear to meet those standards. As the minister responsible for municipal legislation, you have the authority to clarify that DC zoning cannot be used to override private covenants unless the statutory criteria are met.
I urge you to review Calgary’s use of DC zoning, issue guidance to municipalities on respecting RCs, and consider regulatory or legislative changes to protect homeowners. Doing so would honour the government’s commitment to bolstering property rights and maintain public confidence in our land-use system, consistent with the principles in the recently approved amendments to the Alberta Bill of Rights.
Thank you for your attention to this important matter.
-
To Local Calgary MLA
Subject: Please stand up for our Neighbourhood’s Restrictive Covenant
Dear [MLA Name],
I am one of your constituents and a homeowner in a community protected by a Restrictive Covenant (RC). I am very concerned about Calgary City Council’s attempt to rezone a Bankview property to Direct Control (DC) in order to remove its covenant protections. Without a clear public-interest rationale or long-term planning process, this approach undermines the contractual rights of homeowners whose properties are protected by the existence of registered RCs..
The courts in Howse v Calgary (City) allowed a covenant to be discharged, but only after decades of planning and consultation. Consultation that was “meaningful”. Our situation is different: the Bankview rezoning seems designed solely to “manufacture” a conflict. That’s neither meaningful engagement nor thoughtful planning. I ask you to raise this issue within your caucus and support provincial measures to ensure that RCs cannot be set aside so easily. Protecting our property rights is consistent with the government’s stated commitment to protect landowners’ property rights and will help preserve the character of our neighbourhoods.
Thank you for representing our community. I hope you will stand with us on this important issue.
-
Template letter from a Community Association
(Adapt the salutation and closing for each recipient—Premier, Minister or MLA.)
Subject: Protecting our Community’s Restrictive Covenants and Property Rights
Dear [Premier Smith / Minister Williams / MLA Name],
Our community association represents [number] households in [neighbourhood], where a Restrictive Covenant (RC) limits each lot to single-detached homes (or semi-detached homes). This covenant, registered on title, is a private agreement among landowners that has helped preserve our neighbourhood’s character for decades. We are alarmed that the Calgary City Council recently used Direct Control (DC) zoning to effectively make single-detached homes an unauthorized use on a parcel in the Bankview community in order to remove its covenant.
Under provincial law, RCs remain enforceable unless a court finds that they conflict irreconcilably with a bylaw and that their discharge is in the public interest. In Howse v Calgary (City), the courts relied on a 35-year planning record, public consultations and a transit-oriented densification strategy to conclude that discharging the covenant served the public good. No similar planning process or public-interest rationale supported the Bankview rezoning.
As [Premier / Minister / MLA], you have a role in ensuring that municipalities honour the intent of the Land Titles Act and the Alberta Bill of Rights and respect for private property rights. We ask you to:
Confirm that municipalities must not use zoning bylaws to nullify RCs unless the statutory criteria are met (clarifying the statutes may be needed);
Clarify the Municipal Government Act so that Direct Control districts cannot be used to override covenants without clearly demonstrating that such use is bounded by reasonable limits and is proportionately justified; and
Support homeowners and communities who depend on these agreements.
Taking these steps would align with the government’s publicly stated commitment to protect property rights, ctvnews.ca, and its authority over property and civil rights in the province. It would also demonstrate that the Province will stand up to any level of government that seeks to erode those rights.
Thank you for considering our concerns and for working to safeguard the homes and investments of the Albertans we represent.