The applicant tenant operated an adult entertainment club and sought a declaration that a notice of termination from the respondent landlord was invalid.
The tenant argued the lease had been validly extended by oral agreement with the previous landlord, while the new landlord argued the extension violated the Statute of Frauds and was unregistered under the Land Titles Act.
The court found the lease extension was valid due to part performance and binding on the new landlord because it had actual notice of the tenancy.
However, the court held the landlord was not required to maintain the municipal owner's licence for the club.
The court declared the termination notice invalid and granted the tenant relief from forfeiture, providing a reasonable time to obtain its own licence.