2 total
The court dismissed a landlord's application to terminate a commercial lease, finding no substantial breaches and granting relief from forfeiture.
The Landlord applied for a declaration of lease termination and a writ of possession against the Tenants, alleging breaches of a commercial lease related to nuisance, failure to provide insurance, denial of inspection, and unpaid snow removal costs.
The Tenants denied material breaches and sought relief from forfeiture.
The court found no substantial breaches by the Tenants, noting their reasonable conduct and the disproportionate nature of forfeiture compared to the alleged damages.
The application for termination and possession was dismissed, and the lease was declared to remain in full force and effect, with a minor order for snow removal costs against the Tenants.
The applicants lost their legal non-conforming use protection by significantly changing the nature and intensity of their property's use.
The applicants sought a declaration that their property's current use (outside storage of vehicles, machinery, equipment, commercial/business operation, storage of trucks/trailers, shipping containers) constituted a legal non-conforming use under s. 34(9) of the Planning Act, which would set aside municipal Orders to Comply.
The respondent sought dismissal, or a declaration limiting the non-conforming use to 4 trucks and 7 trailers.
The court found that while the property had a prior legal non-conforming use as a trucking business with ancillary parking and storage, the applicants' current use had significantly changed in nature and intensity, including storage of derelict vehicles, a fuelling station, and a junk yard, which were too remote from the original use and caused undue neighbourhood impact.
Consequently, the applicants lost the protection of s. 34(9) of the Planning Act, and their application was dismissed, making the Orders to Comply enforceable.
