A commercial tenant sought a declaration under the Commercial Tenancies Act that a landlord had wrongfully distrained its assets and equipment after terminating the tenancy by changing the locks, or alternatively that the distraint was excessive.
The application judge found that changing the locks did not terminate the lease because the tenant retained access to the premises during business hours and by arrangement after hours.
The application judge ordered a trial to determine whether the distraint was excessive, as the parties had not provided sufficient particularized evidence of the value of the distrained equipment or the exact amount of rent arrears.
The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's decision, finding that while a summary determination was possible on the lease termination issue, the parties had not presented sufficient evidence to determine the amount of rent outstanding, the value of the distrained goods, or any damages.