3 total
A commercial landlord's notice of termination for demolition was ineffective because asbestos abatement did not constitute the commencement of demolition requiring a permit.
The landlord, Camcentre Holdings Inc., appealed a lower court decision that found its Notice of Termination of a commercial lease ineffective.
The termination was based on a demolition clause requiring "all requisite permits and authorizations for the commencement of such redevelopment, reconstruction or demolition" by the end of the notice period.
The landlord argued that asbestos abatement, which did not require a permit, constituted the commencement of demolition.
The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's finding that the Notice of Termination was ineffective because the landlord had not obtained a demolition permit by the specified date, and asbestos abatement was not considered the "commencement of demolition" for the purpose of the lease clause.
The appeal was dismissed.
The court dismissed a motion for summary judgment for mortgage foreclosure due to a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the authenticity of renewal letters.
The Plaintiff, 1305268 Ontario Inc., moved for summary judgment seeking foreclosure on a mortgage against the Defendant, 823042 Ontario Inc. The Defendant argued that the mortgage enforcement was statute-barred by a 10-year limitation period, alleging that three letters purporting to renew the mortgage were fraudulent.
The court dismissed the motion for summary judgment, finding a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the authenticity of the renewal letters and the limitations defense.
The judge emphasized the necessity of *viva voce* evidence and credibility assessment, particularly from a key witness, Kenneth James, and drew an adverse inference from the Plaintiff's failure to call him.
Motion to intervene granted; competitors added as parties to appeal concerning postal service monopoly.
Two competitors in the outbound international mail industry brought a motion to intervene in an appeal concerning the interpretation of the Canada Post Corporation Act's exclusive privilege provisions.
The moving parties sought to be added as parties or friends of the court, arguing they had a direct interest as they were facing similar injunction proceedings by the respondent.
The Court of Appeal granted the motion, adding the moving parties as intervenors with the right to augment the record, finding they had a sufficient interest and common questions of law with the main proceeding.
