The applicants sought discharge of a $100,000 charge registered against residential property as security for a commercial lease guarantee after the lease had been assigned to a new tenant with replacement guarantors and replacement security.
The respondent landlord counter-applied for $145,205 in alleged repair and renovation costs said to arise from the outgoing tenant's obligations under a lease renewal agreement.
The court held that the proceeding could be determined by application because the dispositive issues turned on contractual interpretation and limitations, not contested material facts requiring a trial.
The court found the guarantors were released when the landlord approved the assignment and accepted replacement guarantors and security.
The landlord's repair claim was characterized as a contractual claim governed by the basic two-year limitation period under s. 4 of the Limitations Act, 2002, not the ten-year period under the Real Property Limitations Act, and was therefore statute-barred.
