This appeal concerned the interpretation of a commercial lease termination provision, specifically whether proposed remodelling rendered continued possession by the tenant "impracticable." The motion judge had granted summary judgment to the landlord, finding the renovations bona fide and that the premises would cease to exist.
The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge erred in construing the termination provision too narrowly and in isolation from other lease provisions, failing to consider whether the tenant could remain in possession during renovations.
The appeal was allowed, the summary judgment and costs order were set aside, and the action was remitted to the Superior Court for continuation.
