By assigning an agreement to someone who then completes the purchase, you have in fact brought that consideration to the table at the time of the transaction.I'm wondering if there was some other intent of that language - such as to prevent a homeowner from being screwed out of their house via some "creative financing" scheme that benefits a 3rd party (e.g. investor) while not providing any (reasonable) compensation to the seller.

We put up a split rail fence for which they had to remove the rails for ROW access (this was to prevent OHVs on our property, not them). 

I believe it tends to give me a slightly lower return, because the sponsor is going to be more careful, and if there is a severe downturn will prevent me from taking catastrophic losses.

There are also winter issues (e.g frozen pipes possibly bursting and having to crank up the heat to prevent that) that we don't deal with in CA.

Unnecessary costs for a cash-out or HELOC doesn't make sense unless you plan to live in the house for a few years.  

The duplex I just got I am putting in 10k just for preventive maintenance making my all-in price 90k, with 20k in rent.

There is a delicate balance somewhere between keeping legislation strong enough to protect homeowners, while also not burdening the industry so much that people choose to do work illegally as you suggested, or take unnecessary time to deliver a finished project (and thus a home for somebody in this case).

The single-minded focus on cash flow, even while house-hacking, has prevented so many people from buying here in Denver and Colorado Springs. 

Trust, you will crowd out alllll sorts of unnecessary stuff if you do that one thing.

I don't know if there are privacy protection laws preventing this in Canada though.