Matthew J. Halpin

The applicant landlord sought an order declaring that the respondent tenant failed to validly exercise an option to release a portion of its leased premises.

The lease required the tenant to provide written confirmation from the federal government of a loss of expected funding by a specific date to exercise the option.

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the government delayed its budget and the tenant could not provide the required confirmation by the deadline.

The court held that the tenant's purported exercise of the option was invalid, as the lease allocated the risk of funding uncertainty to the tenant.

The court also rejected the tenant's arguments of frustration and relief from forfeiture, ordering the tenant to pay substantial indemnity costs.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking an order to provide discovery documents, transcripts, and answers to its competition lawyers for the limited purpose of obtaining legal advice.

This advice was to determine whether to bring a further motion to seek leave of the Court to provide some or all of this material to the Competition Bureau, which was conducting an investigation into the defendant's fee structure.

The defendant opposed, arguing that the disclosure would breach the deemed undertaking rule and a confidentiality agreement.

The Master found that the deemed undertaking rule was not engaged because the purpose was to obtain legal advice for a potential further motion within the same proceeding, not for a collateral or ulterior purpose.

Even if the rule were engaged, relief would be granted due to the plaintiff's fundamental right to counsel of choice and the defendant's failure to demonstrate prejudice.

The Master also concluded that providing the documents to counsel for this limited purpose would not breach the confidentiality agreement.

The motion was granted.

A tenant obtained summary judgment against a landlord for recovery of losses arising from a fire at leased premises under a commercial lease.

The landlord appealed, and the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge erred in interpreting the lease by failing to apply binding appellate authority regarding contractual allocation of risk, failing to assign meaning to all contested lease terms, and ruling that the tenant's breach of its insurance covenant did not bar its subrogated claim.

The Supreme Court of Canada remanded the matter for reconsideration in light of Ledcor Construction.

On remand, the Court of Appeal affirmed its original decision, holding that the correctness standard of review applied to extricable questions of law within the motion judge's interpretation of the negotiated lease.

The defendants brought motions for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action regarding a right of first refusal on a quarry property.

The plaintiff had operated the quarry under a 1991 agreement that expired in 2006, but continued to pay rent.

The court found the agreement was a lease that renewed on a year-to-year basis.

However, the court held that whether the right of first refusal also renewed, and whether a binding agreement of purchase and sale was formed, were genuine issues requiring a trial.

The defendants' motions for summary judgment were dismissed and an expedited trial was ordered.