True or False: The court has softened the rules requiring written agreements for interest in land.

The assertion that the court has softened the rules requiring written agreements for interests in land is indeed true. In the realm of Canadian property law, there are specific requirements outlined in the Statute of Frauds, which traditionally mandated that certain agreements, such as those for the sale or transfer of land, must be in writing to be enforceable. However, court interpretations and developments in case law have introduced flexibility in certain situations, particularly regarding the enforcement of interests in land that may not have a formal written agreement.

For example, courts have occasionally recognized the validity of oral agreements if there is evidence of reliance on those agreements or if certain equitable principles, such as estoppel, apply. Furthermore, in the case of leases, especially those for a term shorter than a year, the necessity for a written agreement has been relaxed in practice, though this can still vary based on jurisdiction and specific circumstances.

This nuanced approach reflects the courts' willingness to adapt traditional legal requirements to more pragmatic considerations, supporting fairness and justice in transactions related to land. Thus, the correct answer confirms that the court's stance has indeed evolved, allowing for a more lenient application of the established rules concerning written agreements for interests in land.