Peter T. Henderson

The applicant landlord sought a declaration that rental arrears were not released or forgiven by a lease extension agreement entered into with the respondent tenants.

The tenants argued that the arrears were wiped out and that they were entitled to a separate allowance under the agreement.

Applying the objective theory of contract formation and considering the factual matrix, the court found that the arrears were folded into the increased monthly rent and that the tenants were not entitled to a separate allowance without corresponding consideration.

The court granted the landlord's application for declaratory relief.

The appellant franchisor appealed a Small Claims Court decision finding it vicariously liable for a fire that occurred at a franchisee's location and caused smoke damage to the respondent's neighbouring business.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge erred in law by characterizing the franchisee as an employee rather than an independent contractor.

The court further held that the trial judge erred by inferring the franchisee's negligence solely from its failure to attend the trial, as there was no evidence as to the cause of the fire.

The action against the franchisor was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the Alcohol and Gaming Commission's decision to refuse the renewal of its registration.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law in the Commission's conclusion that the appellant's representative attempted to deceive the Commission.

The Court also held that the financial information sought by the Commission was relevant, and the refusal to provide it contravened the Gaming Control Act, requiring the refusal of the renewal.

Costs of $10,460 were awarded to the respondent.