Re Drummond Wren
decision by the Ontario High Court
Re Drummond Wren [1945] O.R. 778 (Ont. H.C.) is a decision by the Ontario High Court, presided by Justice Mackay, regarding the validity of a racially motivated restrictive covenant. The Workers' Educational Association purchased a lot in East York. The covenant prohibited the land from being sold to "Jews, or persons of objectionable nationality". Drummond Wren brought forward an action to have the restrictive covenant declared invalid. Wren was the general secretary of the Workers' Educational Association. He was represented by John Cartwright and Irving Himel. J. M. Bennett appeared as legal counsel for the Canadian Jewish Congress, assisted by Bora Laskin, Jacob Finkelman, and Charles Dubin.
Ruling
Justice Mackay found the covenant to be invalid as a violation of public policy. He cited the recent signing of the United Nations Charter by the United Nations, to which Canada was a signatory, as a determining factor for public policy.
The public source identifies “Re Drummond Wren” as decision by the Ontario High Court. This brief keeps that definition visible, then builds a research path around Drummond, Wren and decision.
Why this record matters
A short description can identify a subject without explaining its stakes. For “Re Drummond Wren”, the useful work is to connect “decision by the Ontario High Court” to the records capable of establishing context and consequence.
Named sources, stable identifiers and responsible institutions provide the strongest route from overview to verifiable evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated May 3, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q7300077. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1945.
A concise general-reference account can conceal disagreements about scope, terminology or the weight assigned to individual sources. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Re Drummond Wren”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Re Drummond Wren primary sources, Re Drummond Wren archive and Drummond research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Re Drummond Wren”?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Re Drummond Wren” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.