Rosa Carlino

The plaintiff brought a motion for the recovery of personal property from the defendant following a dispute over an oral lease agreement.

The plaintiff alleged illegal distraint after the defendant changed locks and began using the plaintiff's chattels.

The court found that the defendant's actions constituted illegal distraint as the landlord-tenant relationship had terminated upon the changing of locks, thereby precluding the remedy of distraint.

The motion was granted, ordering the recovery of the plaintiff's personal property and fixing costs.

A commercial tenant sought a declaration under the Commercial Tenancies Act that a landlord had wrongfully distrained its assets and equipment after terminating the tenancy by changing the locks, or alternatively that the distraint was excessive.

The application judge found that changing the locks did not terminate the lease because the tenant retained access to the premises during business hours and by arrangement after hours.

The application judge ordered a trial to determine whether the distraint was excessive, as the parties had not provided sufficient particularized evidence of the value of the distrained equipment or the exact amount of rent arrears.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's decision, finding that while a summary determination was possible on the lease termination issue, the parties had not presented sufficient evidence to determine the amount of rent outstanding, the value of the distrained goods, or any damages.

The applicant sought a finding of contempt against the respondent for breaching an interim order regarding access to premises and handling of assets during a tenancy dispute.

The court found the respondent in contempt for intentionally refusing access to one of the applicant's employees, Mr. Fennell, which was contrary to the order for supervised access.

Other allegations, including unreasonable behaviour, preventing removal of an 8-foot brake, and relocating assets within the premises, were not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court imposed a fine of $5,000 and awarded substantial indemnity costs of $8,000 to the applicant.

Punitive damages were deemed inappropriate at this interim stage.

A commercial tenant applied for a declaration that the landlord had wrongfully or excessively distrained its assets.

The court found that the landlord's actions, including changing locks, did not terminate the tenancy because the tenant maintained conditional access.

However, the court could not determine on the record whether rent was in arrears or if the distraint was excessive, as these issues required further evidence.

The application was therefore directed to proceed as an action for damages, with costs reserved.