This private‑member bill targets legal barriers on commercial property that limit where grocers can operate. Rather than regulating pricing directly, it changes property and consumer‑protection law to remove contractual and registered land restrictions that keep competitors out of shopping plazas and neighbourhood strips.
The practical effect: commercial exclusivity clauses and certain restrictive covenants that prevent grocery stores or convenience stores selling fresh produce are declared void, while the Department of Service Nova Scotia gains a named Director of Consumer Protection with authority to discharge existing covenants. The bill also bars remedies and compensation tied to the change; it takes effect April 1, 2027.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill adds a Director of Consumer Protection in Service Nova Scotia and amends the Real Property Act to eliminate two categories of competitor property controls: exclusivity clauses in commercial leases and restrictive covenants that ban grocery uses. It provides an administrative pathway for removing registered covenants and allows registrars to note those discharges.
Who It Affects
Landlords, commercial tenants (especially anchor grocery tenants), prospective grocery operators and convenience stores selling fresh produce, property purchasers, registrars, and lenders who take security over commercial real estate will feel the changes directly. Municipalities and planners are affected indirectly through altered market dynamics for retail sites.
Why It Matters
By removing legal barriers to entry on property, the bill aims to lower the price and improve access to food by enabling more grocers and fresh‑produce sellers to enter shopping locations. The combination of retroactive invalidation and a statutory immunity from liability makes this a forceful, administratively driven re‑allocation of commercial property rights.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill rewrites how Nova Scotia treats two common tools that have long been used to protect incumbent retailers: exclusivity clauses in commercial leases and restrictive covenants registered on title. It defines these tools, explains that they function as ‘‘competitor property controls,’’ and then takes them out of the legal toolkit for blocking grocery competition.
Crucially, the ban applies whether the clause or covenant was created before or after the law comes into effect.
Exclusivity clauses — lease language that prevents a landlord from leasing nearby space to a tenant’s competitor or that narrows what products a tenant’s neighbours may sell — are declared void across the board. Restrictive covenants that prevent a purchaser or owner of commercial property from operating, or leasing to operators of, grocery stores or convenience stores that sell fresh produce are likewise voided.
The bill limits the voiding to these specific types of retail uses rather than to all commercial restrictions.For existing registered covenants, the bill creates a practical mechanism: the Director of Consumer Protection (a departmental employee appointed by the Minister) can cancel or discharge qualifying restrictive covenants on application or when the Director becomes aware that a covenant is already void. The land registry system is given power to record entries on the margin of the original registered instrument to reflect a discharge, and the Registry Act and Land Registration Act are the procedural paths for doing so.One of the bill’s most consequential features is its waiver of liability.
It denies any cause of action, compensation, or remedy against the government or any person arising from the Act, and expressly excludes claims for expropriation, injurious affection, or related compensation. That provision closes off the normal legal routes that affected parties might use to seek payment for lost exclusivity or diminished property values.
The bill comes into force April 1, 2027.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Section 10C voids exclusivity clauses in commercial leases and makes that voiding effective whether the clause was created before or after the law comes into force.
Section 10D voids any restrictive covenant that prohibits the use of land for a grocery or supermarket, or for a convenience store that sells fresh produce, regardless of when it was registered.
Section 10E empowers the Director of Consumer Protection to cancel or discharge registered restrictive covenants on application and allows registrars to note discharges on the original instruments under the Registry Act or Land Registration Act.
The amendment to the Consumer Protection Act requires the Minister to appoint a Director of Consumer Protection to manage Department operations relevant to the Act and to exercise powers given by this bill.
Clause 4 bars any cause of action or entitlement to compensation (including for loss of revenue, goodwill, or expected earnings) and states explicitly that no taking or expropriation occurs as a result of this Act.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Provides the Act’s official short title, ‘‘Increasing Grocer Competition Act,’’ for citation. This is administrative but important for how regulations or orders would reference the statute in follow‑on instruments.
Director of Consumer Protection — appointment and responsibilities
Mandates that the Minister appoint an employee of Service Nova Scotia as Director of Consumer Protection and makes the Director responsible for Department operations under the Consumer Protection Act. The provision also leaves room for the Minister or other statutes to assign further duties, which creates a central administrative actor for covenant cancellations and related functions.
Definitions of competitor property controls, exclusivity clauses and restrictive covenants
Introduces statutory definitions that determine the law’s scope: ‘‘competitor property controls’’ (an exclusivity clause or restrictive covenant), ‘‘exclusivity clause’’ (lease language limiting leasing to competitors or constraining product sales, including incentives not to lease to competitors), and ‘‘restrictive covenant’’ (title restrictions preventing use or leasing to competing businesses). These definitions narrow the reform to specific landlord/tenant and title‑based mechanisms rather than sweeping all use restrictions.
Purpose statement; voiding exclusivity clauses and restrictive covenants
Declares legislative purpose (lower food prices and improved access) and makes exclusivity clauses in commercial leases void (s.10C) and restrictive covenants void if they prohibit grocery stores, supermarkets, or convenience stores selling fresh produce (s.10D). Each voiding clause expressly applies to instruments created before or after commencement, so the effect is retroactive as well as prospective.
Administrative cancellation and registry mechanics
Grants the Director of Consumer Protection authority to cancel or discharge registered restrictive covenants on application and to act when the Director has notice a covenant is void. It also provides that a registrar may record a marginal entry on the original registered instrument under the Registry Act or Land Registration Act to effect a discharge, establishing a practical process for clearing title records.
Immunity from claims and commencement
Clause 4 removes legal remedies: no cause of action, damages, compensation, or other remedies are available to any person in relation to the Act and no action may be brought that is ‘‘directly or indirectly’’ based on the Act; Clause 5 sets the effective date as April 1, 2027. Together, these provisions close off legal challenges for monetary relief while making the changes operative on a fixed future date.
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 and new entrant grocers — Gain access to retail locations previously blocked by exclusivity clauses or restrictive covenants, lowering the transaction costs and legal friction of leasing or purchasing commercial space for grocery operations.
- Consumers, particularly in underserved neighbourhoods — Increased potential for new grocery outlets and fresh‑produce sellers can raise supply density, which tends to increase choice and exert downward pressure on prices for food staples.
- Property buyers and developers seeking flexible retail uses — Freed title and leasing options improve marketability of commercial lots and shopping centres that were encumbered by use restrictions, supporting adaptive reuse and redevelopment.
- Convenience stores that sell fresh produce — Those operators can occupy sites that prior covenants excluded, allowing expansion of fresh‑food retail in smaller footprints.
- Smaller landlords — No longer required to accept restrictive exclusivity demands to secure an anchor tenant; they can lease to a broader set of grocery operators, potentially increasing rental competition.
Who Bears the Cost
- Incumbent anchor tenants and large grocers that relied on exclusivity to protect market share — They lose contractual protection that helped secure foot traffic and tenant mix, potentially reducing revenue or diluting brand exclusivity.
- Landlords who negotiated higher rents or incentives in exchange for exclusivity — Those commercial landlords may see lower lease leverage and must renegotiate or search for alternative tenant protections.
- Sellers who used restrictive covenants as a saleable asset or to shore up property values — Property valuations that priced covenants as a value add may decline and buyers may challenge historical valuations in related disputes outside the Act’s narrow waiver.
- Lenders and mortgagees taking security over commercial real estate — Collateral value and loan covenants tied to exclusive tenancy arrangements may be impaired, requiring credit reviews or covenant resets.
- Provincial administration — The Department of Service Nova Scotia must house the Director role and process covenant cancellations; that creates an operational workload and potential need for policies and resourcing.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between expanding consumer access to food by stripping private and registered restrictions on commercial property, and up‑ending property and contractual expectations without offering compensation or a clear procedural substitute — a trade‑off between distributive gains for market entry and the fairness, predictability, and investment incentives tied to settled property rights.
The bill combines retroactive voiding of private contracts and registered title restrictions with an administrative cancellation route and a broad waiver of legal remedies. That mix raises immediate implementation questions: how will the Director prioritize applications, what evidence will be required to establish that a covenant fits the statutory definition, and how will registrars effect consistent marginal notations across varied instruments?
The statute delegates operational detail to the Department, but it does not set standards for timing, notice to affected parties, or an appeal mechanism for Director decisions, leaving significant procedural gaps to be filled in practice.
The waiver of remedies is deliberate and strong: the Act denies compensation and says explicitly that no taking or expropriation occurs. That reduces the government’s fiscal exposure but heightens questions about fairness and predictability for parties who acquired or contracted in reliance on exclusivity protections.
It also creates a potential compliance grey zone where affected private actors might seek non‑statutory responses (for example, contractual workaround clauses not covered by the definitions) or challenge the statute’s application on constitutional grounds, even if monetary remedies are restricted.
Finally, the bill’s substantive scope is narrow but not frictionless: it targets grocery stores, supermarkets, and convenience stores selling fresh produce. That leaves open workarounds via closely related retail uses (e.g., prepared food, specialty food shops, or larger general retailers) and presents definitional disputes over what counts as ‘‘selling fresh produce.’’ Those ambiguities will shape how effective the reform is at increasing competition and where litigation or administrative pushback concentrates.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.