Lockout and retention of tenant goods constituted illegal distress after lease forfeiture.
Commercial tenants applied for relief after their landlord terminated a lease by changing the locks and refusing access to goods left in the premises unless alleged rent arrears were paid.
The court held that changing the locks effected a forfeiture of the lease and that a landlord cannot simultaneously exercise forfeiture and distress.
Retaining the tenants’ goods as leverage for rent constituted excessive and illegal distress under the Commercial Tenancies Act.
The court found the tenants had not abandoned the property and that the landlord’s conduct was wrongful and potentially oppressive.
Liability was established and a trial of the issue was ordered to determine general, special, and punitive damages, including possible lost profits.
