This appeal concerned competing claims by a landlord, an equipment vendor, and a financing company to restaurant equipment left in leased premises after the tenant abandoned them.
The court held that the priority dispute was governed by s. 31(2) of the Commercial Tenancies Act, not by the priority provisions of the Personal Property Security Act.
Because the tenant never had title to the equipment, the landlord could not invoke the statutory exception for title derived from the tenant and could only distrain against whatever equity the tenant may have acquired under the lease arrangement.
The appeal was dismissed with costs.
