A win in KanataFor the reasons that follow, I agree with ClubLink that the application judge erred in his analysis of ss. 5(4) and 9 of the 1981 Agreement. Specifically, the application judge erred in his determination that because the parties never intended the rights to the conveyances to “crystallize”, there was no intention to create an interest in land. In my view, when the correct legal principles are applied, in the context of all the Agreements, the plain language of ss. 5(4) and 9 creates a contingent interest in land. Sections 5(4) and 9 are therefore void and unenforceable as being contrary to the rule against perpetuities because the City’s right to call upon a conveyance of the golf course lands did not vest during the perpetuity period. I would therefore allow the appeal.