Russell Sanford Bennett

The appellant, a subtenant operating an unlicensed cannabis store, appealed the dismissal of his claim regarding improper sublease termination and denial of relief from forfeiture.

The head landlord had issued a notice of breach and later repossessed the premises after a police raid, relying on the original notice.

The application judge found that the landlord had not waived the breach because they were misled by the subtenant regarding a valid licensing exemption.

The Court of Appeal upheld this finding, affirming that a waiver requires full knowledge of rights, which was absent due to the misleading information.

The Court also upheld the denial of relief from forfeiture, considering the seriousness of the breach and the subtenant's conduct.

The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondents.

The applicant, Courtney Campbell, sought relief from forfeiture and re-entry into commercial premises after the landlord, 1493951 Ontario Inc., changed the locks following a police raid on Campbell's unlicensed cannabis store.

The court found Campbell had a valid sub-lease and standing to seek relief.

However, it determined Campbell breached the lease by operating an illegal cannabis business without proper licenses or exemptions.

The landlord was entitled to rely on a prior notice of breach from August 2019, as Campbell had misled them into believing the breach was cured.

The court dismissed Campbell's application for relief from forfeiture, finding the breach serious and the forfeiture lawful, and that it would not be inequitable or unjust to deny relief.

The applicant, Courtney Campbell, sought an interim order for relief from forfeiture and re-entry into his cannabis retail store after the landlord changed the locks.

The court applied the three-part test for interim injunctive relief from RJR MacDonald.

While acknowledging serious issues to be tried regarding the sub-lease and forfeiture, the court found that the applicant failed to establish irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favored granting the interim order.

This was primarily because the applicant's business was operating without the required provincial and federal licenses for cannabis sales, rendering any lost profits from such an operation not the type of harm the court should consider.

Furthermore, allowing the unlicensed business to reopen posed a risk of charges to the landlord.

The interim relief was dismissed.

The defendant, an undischarged bankrupt, sought leave to appeal an order that required him to pay $40,250 in previous costs orders as a condition to set aside a noting of default and allow him to file a statement of defence.

The motion judge had found that the defendant failed to prove impecuniosity, despite his bankruptcy, due to unchallenged evidence suggesting undisclosed assets.

The court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no serious doubt as to the correctness of the motion judge's discretionary order and that the matter did not involve questions of general public importance beyond the immediate parties.

Costs of $5,000 were awarded to the plaintiffs.