Court of Appeal for Ontario

DATE: 2026-02-20 DOCKET: COA-25-CV-0615

Fairburn A.C.J.O., Rouleau and Roberts JJ.A.

Parties

BETWEEN

McDonald's Restaurants of Canada Limited Applicant (Respondent)

and

North Elgin Centre Inc. Respondent (Appellant)

AND BETWEEN

North Elgin Centre Inc. Applicant (Appellant)

and

McDonald's Restaurants of Canada Limited Respondent (Respondent)

Counsel

Catherine Francis and Jeffrey Streisfield, for the appellant

Andrew Parley, Aoife Quinn and Alexa Jarvis, for the respondent

Heard and rendered orally: February 18, 2026

On appeal from the orders of Justice John Callaghan of the Superior Court of Justice, dated April 15, 2025, with reasons reported at 2025 ONSC 1985, and from the costs order dated June 9, 2025.

Reasons for Decision

[1] This appeal concerns the validity of the renewals of a long-term commercial lease between the appellant landlord and respondent tenant. The appellant appeals the dismissal of its application for a declaration that the lease expired on March 11, 2018, and for ancillary relief on the basis that the tenant was overholding.

[2] The appellant effectively repeats the same arguments that the application judge rejected. We see no error in his analysis and conclusions.

[3] In oral submissions, the appellant focused on the argument that failure to obtain timely approval under the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, brought the lease to an end and precluded further renewals.

[4] In his careful reasons, the application judge considered and rejected this argument. We see no error in his approach. It was open to him to find that the respondent did continue to take appropriate steps to obtain the necessary Planning Act approval. His interpretation that the renewals were permitted subject to Planning Act approval is consistent with this court's previous decisions.

[5] The appellant also submits that the application judge's order effectively prevented it from protecting its interests as owner of the lands in the Planning Act approval process. We disagree. His order did not prevent the appellant from submitting conditions except those that vitiated or rendered nugatory its consent, which it was required to give under the lease. This is also consistent with this court's previous orders. We note that the parties did not return to the application judge to seek to clarify any ambiguity that the appellant now submits the order contains.

[6] The parties seek to admit fresh evidence about the status of the Planning Act approval process. The application judge's decision anticipated that the approval process would continue and be completed after his decision was rendered. The fresh evidence is therefore irrelevant to and does not affect the outcome of this appeal. Accordingly, we do not admit the fresh evidence.

[7] The appellant also seeks leave to appeal the costs award of $225,000 to the respondent. We see no error in the application judge's discretionary order that is subject to high appellate deference.

[8] For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed. The motions to admit fresh evidence are dismissed.

[9] As agreed, the respondent is entitled to appeal costs in the all-inclusive amount of $25,000.

"Fairburn A.C.J.O."

"Paul Rouleau J.A."

"L.B. Roberts J.A."