The parties entered into two agreements to lease a heritage building for an event venue and restaurant.
Disputes arose over the scope of the landlord's work, specifically roof repairs, and the execution of a formal lease.
The landlord sought to terminate the agreements, arguing they were too uncertain to be enforceable and that the tenant had defaulted.
The tenant sought declarations that the agreements were binding and that the landlord was in breach.
The court held that both agreements were binding and enforceable, and that a formal lease was not a condition precedent.
The court found that both parties had breached their obligations, resulting in a contractual stalemate, and dismissed the landlord's application to evict the tenant.
