Roger Carl Joseph Bourque

The applicant tenant sought a declaration that its commercial lease was valid and binding on the new owner of the building.

The applicant had signed a new five-year lease with the previous landlord, but the landlord claimed it was never received.

Both parties, however, acted as if the lease were in effect, with the applicant paying increased rent.

The new owner purchased the building and claimed the applicant was a month-to-month tenant, seeking to significantly increase the rent.

The court found that the lease was valid and enforceable through the doctrine of part performance.

Furthermore, the court held that the unregistered lease was binding on the new owner because the new owner was wilfully blind to the existence of the lease during the purchase process.

The plaintiff brought a motion under Rules 25.06, 25.10, and 25.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking to strike portions of a defendant’s Statement of Defence in a civil fraud action alleging misappropriation of corporate funds.

The court considered whether several pleaded allegations were irrelevant, speculative, inflammatory, or unsupported by material facts.

Some impugned paragraphs were allowed to remain because they were relevant to the defendant’s theory that he acted under instructions from a corporate officer.

However, other allegations containing speculation, unsupported assertions, or inflammatory descriptive terms were struck, though the defendant was granted leave to amend to properly plead material facts and comply with pleading rules, including requirements for pleading fraud with particulars.

The appellant appealed an order of the motion judge.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the impact of the Stipulated Order on the Amended Plan of Reorganization is a matter to be determined at trial because it turns on questions of foreign law.

The order was varied accordingly, and the parties were ordered to bear their own costs of the appeal.