This private member’s bill amends Nova Scotia’s Real Property Act to prohibit two kinds of private limits that have kept new food retailers out of some locations: exclusivity clauses in commercial leases and restrictive covenants on title that bar grocery stores or convenience stores selling fresh produce. Both categories are declared void whether they were created before or after the law comes into force.
The bill also gives land registrars authority to cancel or mark discharged any registered restrictive covenant covered by the new rule, and contains a broad bar on causes of action, compensation, or remedies arising from the statute’s effects. The combination short-circuits compensation claims but raises implementation and property-rights questions that will matter to landlords, national chains, new entrants and municipal authorities.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill voids exclusivity clauses in commercial leases and voids restrictive covenants that prohibit the use of land for grocery stores or convenience stores selling fresh produce. It authorizes registrars to cancel or discharge affected registered covenants and applies retroactively to instruments created before the law takes effect.
Who It Affects
Commercial landlords and tenants in the retail grocery space, grocery chains that rely on territorial protections, independent grocers and co‑ops seeking sites, and land registry offices that must process cancellations. Municipal planners and zoning officials will also see practical effects where private controls previously shaped retail patterns.
Why It Matters
By removing private contractual and title-based barriers, the bill aims to increase competition and physical access to food outlets—potentially lowering local prices or improving food availability. At the same time it eliminates legal remedies and compensation, shifting the costs of that policy choice onto title holders and landlords without providing a process for valuation or redress.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The Act adds a new cluster of provisions to the Real Property Act targeted at what it calls “competitor property controls.” It defines the two instruments it removes: “exclusivity clauses” inside commercial leases (clauses that stop a lessor from leasing to tenant competitors or that limit product offerings) and “restrictive covenants” on land title that prevent future owners from using property for competing food retail. The definitions are functional and broad: an exclusivity clause can include incentives not to lease to a competitor, and a restrictive covenant covers any land restriction that blocks operation or leasing to competing businesses.
Substantively, the legislation declares these instruments void. The prohibition on exclusivity clauses is categorical: the bill says an exclusivity clause in a commercial lease is void and that the rule applies to clauses created before or after the law’s coming into force.
For restrictive covenants, the law voids any covenant that—absolutely or for a period—bars a grocery store or a convenience store that sells fresh produce from operating on the land; that rule likewise reaches back and forward in time.To clear title and make sites usable in practice, the Act empowers registrars under the Registry Act and the Land Registration Act to cancel or discharge registered restrictive covenants covered by the rule. It also authorizes registrars to note the discharge on the margin of registered instruments, creating an administrative path to remove recorded encumbrances.
That administrative route is necessary because, without it, a void declaration alone might leave recorded instruments confusing to land users and financial institutions.Finally, the bill includes a sweeping non‑compensation clause: it denies any cause of action, remedy, costs, compensation or damages arising directly or indirectly from the Act and bars actions against the government or any person that are based on or related to the statute. The Act states explicitly that no taking, expropriation, or injurious affection arises from its operation.
The statutory effective date is January 1, 2027.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill voids all exclusivity clauses in commercial leases, and that rule applies to clauses created both before and after the Act comes into force.
It voids any restrictive covenant that prohibits, absolutely or for a time, the use of land for a grocery store or a convenience store selling fresh produce.
Registrars under the Registry Act and Land Registration Act may cancel or discharge registered restrictive covenants covered by the new rule and must be able to make marginal entries to reflect that discharge.
Section 3 bars any cause of action or claim for costs, compensation or damages against the government or any person arising from this Act, and expressly states no taking or expropriation occurs.
The Act takes effect January 1, 2027 and applies retroactively to instruments made before that date as well as prospectively.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Provides the Act’s citation as the Increasing Grocer Competition Act. This is the boilerplate naming provision that indicates the statute should be read as a standalone amendment to the Real Property Act.
Defines 'competitor property controls' and its components
Creates statutory definitions for 'competitor property controls,' 'exclusivity clause,' and 'restrictive covenant.' The definitions are deliberately broad — an exclusivity clause can be any lease provision that limits leasing to competitors or limits product sales, and a restrictive covenant covers title-based restrictions preventing a property from hosting competing businesses. Those definitions set the scope for later nullification and will be decisive in borderline cases (for example, incentive schemes or drafting that seeks the same economic effect without the word 'exclusivity').
Declares legislative objective
States the purpose: eliminating competitor property controls in the grocery commercial sector to lower food prices and improve accessibility. While not operational, the purpose clause signals legislative intent and may guide courts in interpreting ambiguous terms, especially where a provision interacts with other property or contract doctrines.
Voids exclusivity clauses in leases
Flatly declares that an exclusivity clause in a commercial lease is void and makes the rule retroactive and prospective. Practically, landlords and tenants lose the ability to rely on lease‑based territorial protections; disputes over past compliance or damages tied to those clauses are constrained by the Act’s later immunity provisions.
Voids covenants blocking grocery uses
Voids any restrictive covenant that prohibits use of land for a grocery store or a convenience store selling fresh produce, regardless of how or when created, and whether absolute or time‑limited. This operates at title level and therefore can change the marketability and potential uses for properties that were previously encumbered to protect other retailers.
Gives registrars authority to cancel or discharge registered covenants
Authorizes registrars under the Registry Act and Land Registration Act (and their deputies) to cancel or discharge affected registered restrictive covenants, either on application or where they have notice the covenant is void. It also permits marginal entries on registered instruments to reflect discharge — the statutory mechanism that turns a void legal status into a cleared, administrable title record.
Bars claims, remedies and compensation
Prevents any cause of action, claim for compensation, or remedies (contractual or equitable) arising directly or indirectly from the Act; bars proceedings against government or any person related to the Act; and states that no expropriation or injurious affection occurs. This is an unusually broad non‑compensation/ immunity clause intended to foreclose restitution or damages for parties who lose contractual or property protections.
Commencement date
Sets the operative date of the Act as January 1, 2027. Because most substantive provisions are expressly retroactive to instruments created before the coming into force, the date primarily matters for administrative timing and registrar processing.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on this topic across all five countries.
Explore this topic in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Independent grocers and small-format food retailers: they gain access to sites previously restricted by covenant or lease protections, reducing a significant non‑zoning barrier to entry and making site acquisition more feasible.
- Community food cooperatives and social enterprises: organizations that prioritize fresh-produce access can lease or purchase properties without facing title-based prohibitions, supporting food-security projects and local retail experiments.
- Consumers in underserved neighbourhoods: by removing contractual barriers that insulated territories from new entrants, the law can increase the supply and geographic availability of fresh food options, which may put downward pressure on prices locally.
- New market entrants and third-party landlords: developers and landlords who wanted to reconfigure a property for grocery use get clearer legal authority to lease to grocers — subject to zoning — improving site redeployment options.
Who Bears the Cost
- Large grocery chains and anchor tenants that relied on exclusivity clauses or title covenants to protect trade areas: they lose contractual territory protections and the economic value embedded in them.
- Property sellers and previous owners who recorded restrictive covenants: those who used covenants to protect amenities or anchor investments potentially see the value of those protections erased with no statutory compensation.
- Commercial landlords who used exclusivity clauses as a bargaining chip: landlords may lose leverage to extract higher rent or better lease terms and may need to adjust pricing models or require other protections from tenants.
- Land registry offices and registrars: they face new administrative duties to process cancellations/discharges, manage marginal entries and respond to applications or notices without an explicit funding or resourcing mechanism in the bill.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between promoting competition and access to food by erasing private barriers, and protecting settled property and contract expectations: the bill removes legal protections that created economic value for owners and tenants but does so without compensation, forcing a policy trade‑off between collective consumer benefits and private property rights and investments.
The Act’s retroactive nullification of private property and contract instruments is legally powerful but creates practical and doctrinal uncertainty. The text voids instruments 'however created' and applies them to pre-existing rights, which raises questions about how courts will treat related contractual expectations not directly enumerated—franchise agreements, licensing arrangements, restrictive covenants embedded in larger instruments, or cross‑default clauses in financing documents may require interpretation to determine whether they are captured.
The bill shuts down compensation and causes of action, which simplifies implementation but transfers the economic consequences entirely to title holders and counterparties without a statutory remedy. That choice reduces litigation risk for provinces and municipalities but may incentivize avoidance strategies (for example: drafting substitute clauses in leases or franchise agreements, creating non‑exclusive but economically prohibitive conditions, or relying more heavily on zoning and site-control tactics).
The Act also does not alter municipal zoning powers; where a municipality prohibits grocery uses, the removal of private covenants will not create a permitted use.
Administrative and commercial frictions remain. Registrars are empowered to cancel or mark instruments, but the bill does not create a streamlined application process, fee structure, or resourcing to handle potentially numerous filings.
Financial institutions and lenders holding mortgages on affected properties will confront uncertainty about collateral quality and may seek contractual protections in lending documents instead of relying on title covenants. Finally, the statutory definitions of 'grocery store' and 'convenience store selling fresh produce' are terse; disputes over borderline retail models (prepared-food retailers, specialty produce purveyors, hybrid stores) will require adjudication or further regulation.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.