Stanley Simpson was a leading businessman and philanthropist in Kelowna, British Columbia, in the first half of the twentieth century. One of his ventures, a sawmill, burned down in 1944. Simpson had no other property nearby and none of his other businesses were in any way related to the sawmill. Consequently, rather than rebuild the sawmill or put the land to other profitable use, Simpson sold the land to the city at a price that was far less than market value. As part of that sale, however, he included two sets of conditions to the sale: (i) the land could be used only for municipal purposes, the buildings on the land had to be attractive, and the grounds had to be suitably landscaped, and (ii) the city could not, at any time, sell the property or use it for either commercial or industrial purposes. Those conditions were registered against title as "restrictive covenants." For many years, the city used the land purchased from Simpson for a city hall and a civic centre. Recently, however, the city has formed the intention to sell the property to a real estate developer, who plans to build condominiums and retail shops on the site. Stanley Simpson is no longer alive, of course, and his old business assets are now owned by a company that is in agreement with the city's plans. Simpson's family and friends, in contrast, have created a group known as Save the Heritage Simpson Covenant Society. The Society insists that the restrictive covenant must be enforced and that the city's plans must be prevented. Will the Society be successful? Did Simpson create a valid restrictive covenant when he sold the land to the city? Is there any other basis on which the Society might win the case?