CITATION: Coating Specialty Inc. v. Engineered Data Products Inc., 2007 ONCA 656

DATE: 20070921

DOCKET: C46736

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

MACPHERSON, SHARPE and JURIANSZ JJ.A.

BETWEEN:

COATING SPECIALTY INC.

Applicant (Appellant)

and

ENGINEERED DATA PRODUCTS INC.

Respondent (Respondent)

Steven Foster and Thomas Arnold for the appellant

Chris Reed and Carmen Belcredi for the respondent

Heard and endorsed: September 14, 2007

On appeal from the judgment of Justice Douglas K. Gray of the Superior Court of Justice dated February 5, 2007.

APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT

[1] We have not been persuaded that the application judge made any error in interpreting the protective installations clause of the lease.

[2] The work clearly comprised additions or alterations for the security of the tenant and its employees and was required by a municipal authority. We do not agree it would be unreasonable or unconscionable to apply the clause to pre-existing conditions allegedly due to the negligence of the landlord. Under the terms of this lease it was for the tenant to satisfy itself that the premises were fit for its occupation before entering into the lease.

[3] The application judge found as a fact that the demised premises included the demising wall and the sprinkler system. There is nothing in the record to the contrary.

[4] If there is any dispute about the quantification of the cost of the work, counsel can work together to avoid returning to the application judge.

[5] The appeal is dismissed. Costs in favour of the respondent are fixed in the amount of $6,000 including disbursements and GST.