3 total
Appeal allowed and matter remitted as application judge failed to address key contractual interpretation argument.
The appellant tenant appealed the dismissal of its application to restrain the respondent landlord from terminating its commercial lease.
The landlord relied on a 30-day termination clause from a 1998 amending agreement.
The tenant argued that subsequent amending agreements, which included a six-month termination clause conditional on redevelopment, indicated the 30-day clause was confined to the 1998 extension term.
The Court of Appeal found the application judge erred by failing to address this key argument regarding contractual interpretation.
The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for a new hearing.
Motion to combine appeals granted; extension of time and stay of partition order pending appeal granted.
The moving parties brought a motion to transfer part of an appeal to the Divisional Court, extend the time to perfect the appeal, and stay the trial judgment pending appeal.
The underlying dispute involved three brothers and a jointly owned residential investment property, resulting in a trial judgment that dismissed a breach of contract claim and ordered partition and sale.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion to transfer, opting to combine the appeals under section 6(2) of the Courts of Justice Act to avoid inconsistent results.
The court granted the extension of time to perfect the appeal and granted a stay of the partition and sale order pending appeal, finding serious issues to be tried and a risk of irreparable harm.
Injunction granted to restrain termination of commercial lease pending appeal due to conflicting lease amendments.
The moving party, a church, sought an injunction restraining the termination of its commercial lease by the landlord pending its appeal of a decision validating a 30-day notice of termination.
The Court of Appeal granted the injunction, finding that the interpretation of conflicting lease amendments raised a serious issue to be tried, the church would suffer irreparable harm due to its extensive charitable operations and the risk of the appeal becoming moot, and the balance of convenience favoured the church as it continued to pay rent.
