In this commercial lease damages appeal, the appellants challenged findings that the respondent had reasonably mitigated its losses after replacement tenants vacated two units and that future rent losses were properly assessed.
The Court of Appeal held that the mitigation findings were factual determinations entitled to deference and that the appellants failed to adduce evidence showing the respondent's efforts were unreasonable.
The court also rejected the argument framed as remoteness respecting one unit, holding the real issue was mitigation.
The trial judge's use of a 50 percent reduction factor for uncertainty in future rent recovery was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed with costs.
