Landlord and Tenant

The applicant tenant sought a declaration that it retained a right to renew a commercial lease and had properly exercised that option.

The court held that the renewal option had already been spent, the tenant had not provided notice in strict compliance with the lease, and the tenant had been in default for most of the term.

The court further refused relief against forfeiture because the defaults resulted from the tenant's own deliberate acts rather than circumstances beyond its control.

The application was dismissed with agreed costs to the successful landlord.

The defendants moved under Rule 21 to strike two actions brought by a self-represented plaintiff against tribunal members, the tribunal, and unnamed employees arising from prior residential tenancy proceedings.

The court held that the tribunal was not a suable entity apart from appeals and judicial review, and that the claims were impermissible collateral attacks and re-litigation of matters already determined.

The court further held that the pleadings did not disclose any viable cause of action and failed to allege material facts capable of displacing judicial or statutory good-faith immunity under s. 232(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006.

Both actions were dismissed without leave to amend.