Landlord and Tenant

The appellant landlord appealed a summary judgment dismissing its claim for prospective rent after terminating a commercial lease for the tenant's default.

The motion judge interpreted the lease as limiting the landlord's recovery upon termination to arrears and a fixed penalty, finding that the lease's reference to "any other remedies available at law or in equity" did not preserve a right to prospective damages that was explicitly precluded later in the same provision.

The Court of Appeal upheld the interpretation, finding no error of law or palpable and overriding error, and dismissed the appellant's additional claims for pool removal costs, maintenance expenses, and costs on the motion below.

The City of Toronto sought the appointment of a receiver and manager over the property, assets, and undertaking of Harry Sherman Crowe Housing Co-operative Inc. due to operational, financial, and governance challenges.

The court addresses the Receiver’s motion for approval of its activities, fees, and a proposed process (RFEIQ) for identifying and qualifying future board members to transition the Co-op out of receivership.

The court approves the Receiver’s activities and fees, and partially approves the RFEIQ process, requiring further reporting and court oversight before any subjective vetting of board candidates.

The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal from a summary judgment ordering the appellants, 2562583 Ontario Inc. o/a Meltwich Food Co. and Janarthanan Jeyaparan, to indemnify the franchisor, Meltwich Hospitality Group Inc., for amounts paid to the landlord, Ritson Division Retail GP Limited, following the franchisee’s breach of a commercial lease.

The court upheld the motion judge’s findings that the franchisee’s breach triggered indemnity obligations under the franchise and assignment agreements, and that the settlement between the franchisor and landlord was reasonable.

The appellants’ arguments regarding the scope of indemnity, timing of liability, and procedural fairness were rejected.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal in this commercial landlord-tenant dispute.

The trial judge found that the tenant, 2682543 Ontario Inc., repudiated the lease for restaurant premises and that the landlord, 720443 Ontario Inc., properly accepted the repudiation and terminated the lease.

The tenant and its guarantor, Shahab Rashid Savojbolaghi, were held liable for damages.

The Court rejected the tenant’s arguments regarding joint occupancy and the timing of possession, upholding the trial judge’s interpretation of the lease and the finding of repudiation.

The appellant landlord appealed a judgment finding it in breach of a commercial lease, granting specific performance, and awarding damages to the respondent tenant.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's findings, interpretation of the lease, grant of specific performance, or assessment of damages, noting the appellant failed to present expert evidence to challenge the damages methodology at trial.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario addressed the test for bad faith under s. 57(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (RTA) and the potential liability of purchasers in "own use" evictions.

The Landlord and Tenant Board (Board) and Divisional Court had erred by unduly narrowing the bad faith assessment to the landlord's knowledge at the time of notice and by failing to consider the purchaser's good faith.

The Court held that the Board must consider all relevant evidence, including events after the notice, and assess the good faith of both the landlord and the purchaser.

The appeal was granted, and the matter remitted to the Board for redetermination.

Horn Ventures International Inc. appealed the dismissal of its application to compel Xylem to sell it property, arguing that a binding agreement for sale was triggered by waiving a condition in an Offer to Lease.

The key issue was whether the "Obligation to Purchase" provision could be triggered before environmental remediation of the property was completed.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's interpretation that the obligation to purchase arose only after Xylem advised that remediation was complete, and Horn Ventures could only waive the environmental consultant's certificate, not the completion of remediation itself.

The appeal was dismissed, as no reversible error was found in the application judge's contractual interpretation.

The plaintiffs, a hair salon tenant and its principals, brought a motion for injunctive relief and access to commercial leased premises after the landlord locked them out due to alleged rent arrears and property damage concerns during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The landlord had purported to exercise a right of distress for an inflated amount including by-law infraction costs.

The court found the landlord's actions constituted a forfeiture of the lease and an illegal distraint.

The court granted the plaintiffs' requested access to retrieve chattels and ordered the landlord to pay substantial indemnity costs due to its "reprehensible, scandalous or outrageous conduct" in holding the chattels hostage during a vulnerable time.

The plaintiff landlord sought double damages under sections 48 and 50 of the Commercial Tenancies Act against the tenant corporation and its principals for allegedly fraudulently or clandestinely removing goods to prevent distress for rent arrears.

The court found that the bulk of the goods were removed before rent arrears accrued and that the removal was not clandestine or fraudulent.

The claims against the individual defendants and the claim for double damages against the corporate tenant were dismissed.

The corporate tenant was found liable for damages for breach of lease due to unpaid rent.

McDonald's appealed a Superior Court decision that terminated a commercial ground lease due to McDonald's failure to comply with the renewal provision.

The application judge found that because the parties had not agreed on a rental rate at least nine months before the lease expiry, McDonald's was obliged to either refer the matter to arbitration or revoke its renewal notice.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the application judge erred in concluding that North Elgin had properly revoked its waiver of strict compliance with the renewal provision.

The court held that the revocation lacked sufficient clarity and did not provide McDonald's with reasonable notice or an opportunity to cure the defect.

The appellant, a fitness club operator, appealed a judgment declaring it had lost its right to extend its commercial lease with the respondent landlord.

The application judge found the appellant had breached the lease by: (1) operating a fitness club at Park Road in violation of geographic non-compete restrictions; and (2) failing to calculate and report gross revenue in accordance with lease provisions for percentage rental payments.

The appellant was given notice to cure but failed to do so.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no overriding or palpable errors in the application judge's interpretation of the lease, rejection of waiver and promissory estoppel defences, and refusal to grant relief from forfeiture.

The appellant landlord appealed a motion judge's decision finding that the parties had agreed to reinstate a commercial lease and that the landlord fundamentally breached that agreement by insisting on additional terms before allowing the tenant to re-enter the premises.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's findings of fact, which were supported by the evidence.

The court found that the tenant had matched the landlord's terms for reinstatement and that the landlord's subsequent demand for additional payments constituted a fundamental breach of the reinstatement agreement.

A tenant obtained summary judgment against a landlord for recovery of losses arising from a fire at leased premises under a commercial lease.

The landlord appealed, and the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge erred in interpreting the lease by failing to apply binding appellate authority regarding contractual allocation of risk, failing to assign meaning to all contested lease terms, and ruling that the tenant's breach of its insurance covenant did not bar its subrogated claim.

The Supreme Court of Canada remanded the matter for reconsideration in light of Ledcor Construction.

On remand, the Court of Appeal affirmed its original decision, holding that the correctness standard of review applied to extricable questions of law within the motion judge's interpretation of the negotiated lease.

The applicant mortgagee sought an order to set aside a tenancy agreement entered into by the mortgagor after defaulting on a mortgage.

The mortgagee argued the agreement was made to discourage possession or adversely affect property value.

The respondent tenants contended that the mortgagee, by accepting a rent payment, became a landlord under the Residential Tenancies Act, thus precluding the Superior Court's jurisdiction.

The court found that the mortgagee's actions were insufficient to establish "mortgagee in possession" status and that it retained jurisdiction under the Mortgages Act to set aside the tenancy agreement.

A writ of possession was issued, and the tenants were ordered to vacate, with the mortgagor responsible for reimbursement.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking a finding of civil contempt against the defendants for alleged non-compliance with a prior court order requiring certain construction and repair work at leased premises.

Applying the established tripartite test for contempt—requiring a clear order, deliberate and wilful breach, and proof beyond a reasonable doubt—the court held that although the order was clear, the evidence did not establish deliberate or wilful non-compliance.

Correspondence between the parties showed the defendants attempting to schedule and perform the ordered work while encountering obstacles and additional demands from the plaintiff outside the scope of the order.

The contempt motion was dismissed.

The court nevertheless issued further directions and timelines to complete outstanding work, including water hookup and construction of a second bathroom.

A franchisee brought an application seeking reinstatement of its franchise after the franchisor terminated the franchise agreement for failure to maintain an approved voicemail system.

The court found the franchisor failed to comply with the contractual termination provisions requiring thirty days’ notice to cure a default.

The franchisor’s reliance on a prior settlement agreement to justify immediate termination was rejected, and the alleged breach did not justify bypassing the contractual notice period.

The court ordered immediate reinstatement of the franchise and possession of the leased premises, with damages to be determined at trial.

The court further held that, had termination been valid, relief from forfeiture would have been appropriate given the disproportionate loss relative to the alleged default.

A residential tenant sought an interlocutory injunction preventing the landlord from allocating units in a redeveloped apartment building until alleged breaches of agreements and Ontario Municipal Board decisions were resolved.

The moving party argued that the relocation and unit selection process violated a section 37 Planning Act agreement and prior representations, and would cause irreparable harm.

The court applied the test from RJR MacDonald v Canada (AG) and held that the tenant failed to establish irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience favoured the landlord.

The tenant also failed to provide an undertaking as to damages as required by Rule 40.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The motion for injunctive relief was dismissed and costs were awarded to the landlord.

A non-profit housing co‑operative applied under the Co‑operative Corporations Act for an order declaring that the respondent’s membership and occupancy rights were terminated, together with a writ of possession and judgment for arrears of housing charges.

The respondent argued that eviction would be unfair due to disputes about subsidies, alleged accounting errors, and significant personal hardship.

The court held that co‑operative eviction decisions are generally entitled to deference and that the respondent could not dispute arrears without first paying the disputed amounts into court as required by the statute.

The respondent had ceased making housing payments for approximately nineteen months, resulting in substantial arrears.

The court concluded that financial hardship alone does not make eviction unfair and granted the requested relief.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing his malicious prosecution claim against his former landlord.

The underlying dispute arose after the appellant’s arrest and bail conditions preventing him from returning to his rental unit, followed by a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating his tenancy.

The Small Claims Court determined it lacked jurisdiction over residential tenancy matters under the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 and recast the remaining claim as malicious prosecution, which was later dismissed after trial.

On appeal, the court held there was evidence supporting the finding that police had reasonable and probable grounds for arrest, including police records and the unappealed Landlord and Tenant Board decision.

Finding no palpable and overriding error, the appeal was dismissed.

The applicant housing co‑operative sought termination of a member’s membership and occupancy rights following complaints regarding smoking in hallways and smoke affecting other tenants.

The co‑operative’s board had previously warned the member that eviction could follow further complaints but later voted to terminate membership at a meeting held without providing the statutory notice required under s. 178(2)3 of the Co‑Operative Corporations Act.

The court held that the earlier warning letter did not constitute adequate notice of the later board meeting nearly three years later.

It also rejected the argument that the member had agreed to voluntarily relinquish her membership and tenancy during settlement negotiations.

The application to enforce the eviction and termination of membership was dismissed.