COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
RE: HOOPP REALTY INC. (Applicant/Respondent) –and– SERVI‑LOGISTIX INC. and KATOEN NATIE CANADA COMPANY, also known as COMPAGNIE KATOEN NATIE CANADA (Respondents/Appellants)
BEFORE: LABROSSE, MOLDAVER and GILLESE JJ.A.
COUNSEL: James A. Hodgson and Samuel M. Robinson for the appellants
Douglas Christie for the respondent
HEARD: January 23, 2004
On appeal from the order of Justice Nancy M. Mossip of the Superior Court of Justice dated July 11, 2003.
E N D O R S E M E N T
1This is an appeal from the judgment of Mossip J., dated July 11, 2003, dealing with the interpretation of certain provisions in a commercial lease made between the respondent (the "landlord") and the appellants (the "tenant") of certain lands and premises.
2A purchaser agreed to purchase all of the tenant's shares. It is conceded that, under the terms of the lease, such a transaction amounts to a change in control of the tenant that constitutes a "transfer" requiring the landlord's consent.
3Prior to the closing of the transaction that effected the change of control of the tenant, the landlord's solicitors purported to consent to the transaction, while reserving all of the landlord's rights under the lease.
4The transaction was closed.
5The tenant took the position that it never agreed to a conditional consent and that, pursuant to the lease provisions, once the transfer was effected the landlord's only option was to terminate the lease. It argued that clause 11.03(b) made the landlord's consent conditional upon the tenant and the transferee executing an agreement with the landlord.
6The landlord took the position that, upon the change of control of the tenant, clause 11.03(b) of the lease entitled it to an amended lease with certain specified terms that included an increase in the minimum rent payable under the lease in accordance with the formula therein provided and an update of the terms of the lease to conform with the landlord's current form of lease.
7The applications judge held that the change in control of the tenant triggered the provisions in clause 11 of the lease and that the tenant was contractually and legally obliged to sign a new lease incorporating the terms contained in clause 11.03, including an increase in rental payments. The landlord was also entitled to recover the legal fees incurred in dealing with this matter.
8In our view, clause 11 of the lease was intended to deal with, among other things, a change of corporate control of the tenant. To accede to the interpretation advanced by the tenant would render much of clause 11.03(b) ineffective. Moreover, such an interpretation would be inconsistent with the true intent of the parties at the time of entry into the contract, which was to specify the effect of such a transfer.
9We agree with the interpretation of the provisions given by the applications judge and would dismiss the appeal with costs fixed at $11,368.55.
Signed: "J.-M. Labrosse J.A."
"M.J. Moldaver J.A."
"E.E. Gillese J.A."