8573123 Canada Inc. o/a Elias Restaurant v. Keele Sheppard Plaza Inc. et al.
[Indexed as: 8573123 Canada Inc. v. Keele Sheppard Plaza Inc.]
Ontario Reports
Ontario Superior Court of Justice
E.M. Morgan J.
September 11, 2020
152 O.R. (3d) 354 | 2020 ONSC 5457
Case Summary
Landlord and tenant — Commercial tenancies — Lease — Renewal — Relief from forfeiture — Considerations — Conduct of parties — Application by the tenant for relief from forfeiture and for an injunction preventing the landlord from evicting it allowed — The tenant was a Black-owned and operated restaurant which catered to the Afro-Caribbean community — The tenant missed the date for submitting written notice that it wished to exercise its option to renew the lease — The tenant had shown good faith in attempting to communicate its desire to renew the lease — The equities and balance of convenience weighed in the tenant's favour — Terminating the tenancy under the present circumstances risked giving force to the landlord's prejudices.
Landlord and tenant — Proceedings — Practice and procedure — Injunctions — Application by the tenant for relief from forfeiture and for an injunction preventing the landlord from evicting it allowed — The tenant was a Black-owned and operated restaurant which catered to the Afro-Caribbean community — The tenant missed the date for submitting written notice that it wished to exercise its option to renew the lease — The tenant had shown good faith in attempting to communicate its desire to renew the lease — The equities and balance of convenience weighed in the tenant's favour — Terminating the tenancy under the present circumstances risked giving force to the landlord's prejudices. [page355]
Application by the tenant for relief from forfeiture and for an injunction preventing the landlord from evicting it from the premises. The tenant operated a restaurant and bar in the commercial unit, serving what its counsel described as African/ Black/Caribbean cultural foods. The tenant missed the date for submitting written notice that it wished to exercise its option to renew the lease. It was now an overholding tenant. The tenant tried on numerous occasions to get in touch with the respondent landlord and manager, but without success. The respondents wished to replace the tenant with a new tenant that attracted a different clientele. The tenant was of the view that it was the fact that the tenant was a Black-owned and operated business, catering to an Afro-Caribbean community, that was the real issue for the landlord.
Held, the application should be allowed.
The tenant was not in breach of the lease and no financial loss had been established by the landlord. The tenant had made a substantial investment in the premises and had shown good faith in attempting to communicate its desire to renew the lease. The societal realities pertaining to Black businesspeople like the tenants had to be factored into the exercise of the court's discretion in considering equitable remedies like injunctions and relief from forfeiture. The equities and the balance of convenience weighed in the tenant's favour. Terminating the tenant's tenancy under the present circumstances risked giving force to the landlord's prejudices. Furthermore, the tenant would lose not only its substantial investment in the premises, but the goodwill associated with its well-established location. Its owners and customers would also suffer the indignity of being excluded from the premises based on what could be seen as a form of bias which Ontario law rejected.
Cases referred to
Beaver Fuels Management Ltd. v. Baker's Dozen Holdings Corp., [2006] O.J. No. 5743 (S.C.J.); Greenwin Construction Co. v. Stone & Webster Canada Ltd. (2001), 2001 27993 (ON SC), 55 O.R. (3d) 345, [2001] O.J. No. 290; LSUC v. McSween, 2012 ONLSAP 3, 2012 ONLSAP 0003; Ontario (Attorney General) v. 8477 Darlington Crescent, 2011 ONCA 36; R. v. Find, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 863, [2001] S.C.J. No. 34, 2001 SCC 32; R. v. Parks (1993), 1993 3383 (ON CA), 15 O.R. (3d) 324, [1993] O.J. No. 2157; RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 311, [1994] S.C.J. No. 17, 1994 117; Saskatchewan River Bungalows Ltd. v. Maritime Life Assurance Co., 1994 100 (SCC), [1994] 2 S.C.R. 490, [1994] S.C.J. No. 59; Velouté Catering Inc. v. Bernardo (2016), 135 O.R. (3d) 32, 2016 ONSC 7281
Statutes referred to
Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 98 [as am.]
Authorities referred to
Fournier, P., "The Ghettoization of Difference in Canada: 'Rape by Culture' and the Danger of a 'Cultural Defence' in Criminal Trials" (2002), 29 Man. L.J. 81
Law Society of Upper Canada, Challenges Faced by Racialized Licensees Working Group: Interim Report to Convocation (Equity and Aboriginal Issues Committee, 2015)
McLachlin, B., "Stereotypes: Their Uses and Misuses" (Address to the McGill University Human Rights Forum, November 1992)
Tulloch, M., Report of the Independent Police Oversight Review (Queen's Printer for Ontario, 2017) [page356]
APPLICATION by the tenant for relief from forfeiture.
Miguna Miguna, for applicant.
Bruce Bussin, for respondents.
E.M. MORGAN J. —
[1] In this commercial landlord-tenant dispute, the Applicant, 8573123 Canada Inc. o/a Elias Restaurant (the "Tenant"), missed the date for submitting written notice that it wished to exercise its option to renew the lease, and is now an overholding tenant. The Respondent, Keele Sheppard Plaza Inc., is the owner of the property (the "Landlord") and the Respondent, Castlehill Properties Inc., is the property manager (the "Manager") and the Landlord's agent and representative.
[2] The Landlord and Manager wish to replace the Tenant with a new tenant that attracts a different clientele than the Tenant. In an approach that the Court rejects, the Landlord feels that a new tenant for the Premises would somehow be more suitable to the shopping plaza.
[3] The Tenant seeks relief from forfeiture and moves to enjoin the Landlord from evicting it from the premises.
I. Background to the Tenancy
[4] Since 2013, when it took an assignment of the lease dated August 1, 2012 (the "Lease"), the Tenant has operated a 1500 sq. ft. restaurant and bar in a commercial unit (the "Premises") located in a shopping plaza at 3310 Keele Street, Toronto (the "Plaza"). The Tenant is owned and operated by a husband and wife team, serves what its counsel describes as African/Black/Caribbean cultural foods, is licensed by the LCBO to serve alcoholic beverages, and caters to a primarily, but not exclusively, Black community customer base.
[5] The Tenant's restaurant business has been rather successful. Despite the economic restrictions during the COVID-19 lockdown, the Tenant maintained its takeout business and has never missed paying any base rent or additional rent ("TMI"). The Tenant's evidence, which is unchallenged by the Landlord and Manager, is that it spent $150,000 in installing improvements to the Premises when it took it over in 2013.
[6] The original Lease was for a five-year term, from August 1, 2012 to July 31, 2017, with options to extend the term for two additional five-year periods. The Lease was assigned by the original tenant to the Tenant on July 30, 2013. [page357]
[7] Ownership of the Plaza itself also changed during the term of the Tenant's Lease. The current Landlord acquired the Plaza from a previous owner in April 2016. Upon the Landlord's acquisition of the Plaza, it sent out a notice to all tenants announcing the new ownership. That notice, dated April 26, 2016, instructed tenants that, "Any and all matters . . . should be addressed to the property management firm."
[8] The Option to Renew clause, art. 1.1(k) of the Lease, provides the terms on which the Option is to be exercised:
Option to Renew: The Tenant, if not in default under this Lease, shall have two (2) successive options and right to renew the Lease each for further term of Five (5) years, on the same terms and conditions as set out therein, excepting further options, and any covenant for free rent (Reduced Rent Period). It is further agreed that any rent increase for the renewal option shall be at fair market rent prevailing at the end of the Term or prior renewal Term, as the case may be for similar space in the area surrounding the Premises. The rent for the renewal shall be mutually agreed upon by the parties three months prior to the end of the term or prior renewal Term, as the case may be. Each option is to be exercised by the Tenant by written notice sent to the Landlord by registered mail at least six (6) months prior to the expiry of the Term or prior renewal Term, as the case may be. In the event that the Tenant shall exercise the option as aforesaid, then the lease for such additional term of five (5) years shall be upon the same terms and conditions as contained in the within lease save and except that:
(a) there shall be no option to renew after the last option herein is exercised; and
(b) the Minimum Rent for each consecutive Term of five (5) years shall be as mutually agreed upon in writing by the Tenant and Landlord at least three (3) months prior to the expiration of the within term of five (5) years, or prior renewal Term, as the case may be, otherwise this option to renew shall be null and void and of no further force or effect whatsoever. In no event shall the annual Minimum Rent during the said renewal period be less than the Minimum Rent paid during the last year of the original term herein or prior renewal Term, as the case may be.
(c) if the parties are unable to mutually agree upon the minimum rent for such renewal term, the said minimum rent shall be determined by arbitration under the Arbitration Act of Ontario, as amended.
[9] Given the terms of art. 1.1(k) and the date of the Lease, the cutoff date for the Tenant to provide written notice of its desire to exercise the Option to Renew was January 31, 2017 -- i.e., six months prior to the end of the term of the Lease on July 31, 2017. No written notice of exercise of the Option was provided by the Tenant prior to the cutoff date. [page358]
II. The Tenant's Efforts
[10] It is not the case, however, that the Tenant was silent with respect to the Option to Renew. The owners of the Tenant tried on numerous occasions, both before and after the cutoff date of January 31, 2017, to get in touch with the Landlord and the Manager, but with no success. Since the Lease states that any and all written notices are to be delivered to the former landlord at its then current office address, and the new Landlord had indicated that all writing was to be directed to the Manager, the situation as to where and with whom to communicate was an admittedly confusing one.
[11] The evidence in the record establishes that the Tenant's owners tried to speak to one or the other of the Manager or Landlord by telephone in order to start the renewal process. However, their calls were never answered; indeed, it appears that their calls were studiously avoided.
[12] As it turns out, the Landlord and Manager did not want the Tenant to continue to occupy the Premises despite the fact that it had never missed a rental payment. The Landlord's affidavit states that the Tenant was not to its liking because it does not attract what he calls "like minded family-oriented customers". He does not, however, indicate in what sense the customers of one store in a shopping Plaza can be said to be "like-minded" with those of other stores in the Plaza -- how, e.g., customers buying shoes might be "like-minded" with those buying lunch. Rather, the Landlord's affidavit takes it for granted that the reader will know what he means.
[13] Separate from anything else, this comment by the Landlord seems at odds with the fact that the Tenant is, in fact, a family business owned and operated by a husband and wife team, and is open to all customers without regard to family status. Counsel for the Tenant submits, with some good reason, that this attitude by the Landlord is a prejudicial one that is both unseemly and uncalled for. As Tenant's counsel points out, there is nothing in the record to indicate that there has ever been a complaint about the Tenant or its customers or by any other Tenant or user of the Plaza.
[14] After nearly a year of unanswered calls, the Tenant had its leasing lawyer write to the Manager indicating that the Tenant wanted to exercise its Option. This was the same leasing lawyer who had represented the Tenant when it negotiated the Assignment of Lease in 2013. Despite being well known to the Plaza's management from his prior engagement by the Tenant, [page359] the Manager' response to the lawyer was to demand proof that he was authorized to represent the Tenant.
[15] In his letter, the Tenant's lawyer explained that his clients had been advising the Manager by phone message that they wanted to renew the Lease, and that all they had gotten in return was a voice message saying "We're looking into it." This non-responsiveness by the Landlord and Manager is not denied in their responding materials.
III. The Landlord's Negative View of the Tenant
[16] What the Landlord and Manager's responding materials do contain, however is an affidavit by a contractor who did work at the Plaza on the Landlord's behalf. The contractor deposes that while he was working there, over a year prior to the date of his affidavit, he saw people standing in the hallway of the Plaza who he took to be customers of the Tenant's restaurant, and that these people were smoking, drinking beer, gambling, and doing other undesirable activities. The contractor does not say how he knew they were the Tenant's customers.
[17] The contractor does, however, take the liberty of observing that, "The customers visiting Elias Restaurant seemed to me to be quite unlike, in a negative way, the usual clientele visiting other tenants. . ." He then goes on to say that, in his view, "the Elias Restaurant does not attract family-oriented customers and detracts from the appeal of the Plaza for families", In similar fashion, the representative of the Landlord deposes in his affidavit that ". . . the Applicant [Tenant] knew that the Respondents [Landlord and Manager] were seeking a family focused business for the Unit in conjunction with other improvements made at the Plaza, and not a liquor bar".
[18] There is no evidence that the Tenant knew anything about the Landlord's supposed "family" focus; indeed, it would have struck them as ironic that the Landlord wanted to be rid of a family-owned restaurant if that were the case. The one thing that the Tenant did know, however, was that the Landlord and Manager did not want them to renew their tenancy. The seemingly deliberate attempts by the Landlord and Manager to avoid communicating with them, and the Manager's refusal to even speak with the Tenant's lawyer until proof of his retainer in writing was obtained, made the Landlord's and Manager's intentions clear in that regard.
[19] Tenant's counsel points out that the Tenant's restaurant-bar is a legally licensed use of the Premises. In fact, I note that art. 1.1(i) of the Lease specifically authorizes one use and one use only for the Premises: "Restaurant business, including [page360] liquor license." With all of the pejorative descriptions by the Landlord and its agents about a "liquor bar" that supposedly "detracts from the appeal of the Plaza for families", there is no explanation as to why a family-run restaurant that, like most restaurants, also is licensed to serve alcohol, is unattractive to families.
[20] It is the Tenant's view that the Landlord's real point is not that families do not eat at restaurants or consume wine and beer with their meals, but rather that the "wrong" kind of families eat at this particular establishment. Tenant's counsel submits that there is a barely veiled tone of racism in these observations made by and on behalf of the Landlord about a Black community restaurant. Indeed, the affidavits submitted by the Landlord and its agents, which describe loitering, drinking, and gambling, articulate what might be considered almost a caricature of racially derogatory themes.
[21] In her Reply Affidavit, the Tenant deposes that the Landlord and/or Manager has in recent times failed to renew leases when they came due of at least one other tenant owned or operated by persons of colour. It is the Tenant's perception that the Plaza is gradually being transformed in a racially defined way.
IV. The Economic Factor
[22] Interestingly, in his Responding Affidavit the Landlord attempts to shift focus from its statements about the character of the Tenant's business, and at the hearing emphasized the rent that the Premises could attract. It is the Landlord's position that if the Tenant were to vacate the Premises and make way for a new tenant, the Landlord's rental income would increase.
[23] In an effort to demonstrate the rental potential of the Premises, the Landlord has appended to its Responding Affidavit an Agreement to Lease -- not a formal lease, but rather a preliminary agreement -- from a prospective tenant who proposes running a medical office in the Premises. Presumably, families in the vicinity of the Plaza consume more medical services than food and drink; at least, that is the suggestion of the Landlord, whose affidavit praises this prospective tenant for being of a type that will "benefit other Plaza tenants by attracting like-minded family customers and meet important needs of the neighbourhood".
[24] It is hard to tell whether the doctor's offer is really more lucrative than the Tenant's. In accordance with art. 11(3) of the Lease, since August 1, 2017 the Tenant has become an overholding Tenant who occupies the Premises on the same terms and [page361] conditions as under the Lease but pays higher rent than during the term of the Lease. Art. 11(3) sets the overholding rent at 125 per cent of the previous year's monthly base rent. Accordingly, the Tenant has been paying the 125 per cent base rent plus all of the additional rent consistently since that time. In addition, the Tenant has understood that the rent for any renewal term was to be at the prevailing market rate as negotiated by the parties.
[25] With a view to kickstarting the rental negotiations, the Tenant wrote to the Landlord and Manager on August 21, 2019 offering to pay a total of $7,500.00 per month for a five-year lease. This is substantially more than the current 125 per cent base rent and additional rent, which comes to $6,605.73. It also appears to be more than the doctor's Offer to Lease exhibited by the Landlord, which specifies a monthly base rent of $4,360.42, plus monthly additional rent. The 2012 Lease set out the last month's additional rent as approximately $1,500. If the TMI for the building has stayed in the same range or increased a modest amount as one might expect in the current low-inflation economy, the gross amount paid by the doctor if he were to take possession of the Premises would less than the $6,605.73 per month currently paid by the Tenant and substantially less than the $7,500 per month offered by the Tenant and rejected by the Landlord.
[26] I hasten to say that the doctor's prospective gross rent is an estimate. The Landlord and Manager are the parties that could provide the exact information in order to compare it to the Tenant's rent, but they have not done so. They rely on an affidavit dated June 29, 2020 with an appended Agreement to Lease setting out a supposed starting date of August 1, 2020 for the doctor, and then argued a motion on August 31, 2020 without relating what has become of the doctor now that the starting date has come and gone. In all of that time, they have not provided the information needed to accurately compare the economic implications of replacing the Tenant with this prospective tenant. This approach, together with the numerous statements about the nature of the Tenant's clientele, makes it evident that it is not the prospect of higher rent for the Premises that is behind the Landlord's desire to replace the Tenant.
V. Weighing of the Equities
[27] The Landlord was satisfied to have the Tenant remain as an overholding tenant from August 1, 2017 until May 28, 2020. On that date, it delivered a letter to the Tenant, through Tenant's counsel, stating: "The landlord hereby exercises its right to [page362] terminate the lease now deemed a monthly lease." The letter indicated that the Landlord was thereby acting in accordance with art. 11(3) of the Lease.
[28] As indicated at the outset, the Tenant seeks an injunction and relief from forfeiture given the significant investment it has made in running its business in the Premises. Its counsel submits that the equities weigh in the Tenant's favour, and that there would be no real prejudice to the Landlord if the Tenant were permitted to stay in the Premises -- or, that is, that there is no prejudice of which this court can or should take account.
[29] The Court of Appeal has observed that, "The power to relieve from forfeiture is discretionary and fact-specific. . . The power is predicated on the existence of circumstances in which enforcing a contractual right of forfeiture, although consistent with the terms of the contract, visits an inequitable consequence on the party that breached the contract."[^1] Here, none of the usual factors weighing against a party seeking relief come into play. Those, most typically, include: (a) the conduct of the applicant and gravity of the breaches; (b) whether the object of the forfeiture is to secure the payment of money; or (c) any disproportion between the value of the property forfeited and the damage caused by the breach.[^2]
[30] Since the Tenant was not in breach of the Lease, and no financial loss has been established by the Landlord, there is little to balance on the Landlord's side of the equation other than the Landlord's subjective view of what it called an "unattractive" Tenant.
[31] On the Tenant's side is its substantial investment in the Premises. In Velouté Catering Inc. v. Bernardo, 2016 ONSC 7281, the tenant advised the landlord a number of times of its desire to renew the lease. As in the case at bar, although written notice was required only verbal communication took place; moreover, the tenant had made a significant investment in improvements to the leased unit. The court ultimately relieved the tenant from its failure to strictly comply with the requirements of the lease, finding that it had the authority to do so because "the tenant has made diligent efforts to comply with [page363] the terms of the lease which are unavailing through no fault of their own".[^3]
[32] More importantly, the prejudice that would allegedly be suffered by the Landlord is not one which carries weight in considering a balance of equities. As already indicated, the Tenant is of the view that it is the fact that the Tenant is a Black-owned and operated business, and caters to an Afro-Caribbean community, that is the real issue for this Landlord. I have already observed that the Landlord's stereotypical portrayal of the Tenant's customers' behaviour fits an established pattern in society. In the Tenant's view, the only "prejudice" the Landlord will have suffered if the Tenant does not have to forfeit the Premises is that the Tenant and its African Canadian customer base, who, as the Landlord's affiant said, are "quite unlike, in a negative way" the rest of those at the Plaza, will remain in the Premises. With respect, this is precisely what legal scholars have identified as the "'Othering' of minority people . . . in the guise of legal method."[^4]
[33] Generally speaking, a trier of fact can take judicial notice of facts that are "so notorious or generally accepted as not to be the subject of debate among reasonable persons".[^5] To this I would add the observation that, "The existence of anti-black racism in Canadian society is not the subject of debate among reasonable people."[^6]
[34] The Landlord's counsel takes some umbrage at the allegation of racism against his clients, and submits that there is nothing in the record to establish that the Landlord or Manager were racially motivated. Motivation, however, is not the point here. Identifying a family-run restaurant as not family-friendly, and impugning a restaurant-bar for serving "liquor" and having smokers stand outside the premises, all point to a mindset that condemns the minority population for what is considered normal behaviour for the majority population. On this point, the Court of Appeal has observed that although racial stereotyping may not be conscious, it is nevertheless real: "For some people, anti-black biases rest on unstated and unchallenged assumptions [page364] learned over a lifetime. Those assumptions shape the daily behaviour of individuals, often without any conscious reference to them."[^7]
[35] For this reason, whether or not the Landlord and its agents were cognizant of their own subconscious attitudes is not the court's focus in weighing the prejudices to the Tenant. Chief Justice McLachlin put the matter succinctly in a published lecture at McGill University:
I am not suggesting that people consciously decide to apply inappropriate racial stereotypes on the ground that they provide easier solutions than rational decision-making. The matter is more complicated, less express than that. In fact, the racial or sexual stereotypes are there, in our minds, bred by social conditioning and encouraged by popular culture and the media . . . We tend to accept them as truths.[^8]
[36] In its landmark decision in R. v. Parks,[^9] the Court of Appeal made reference to sociological studies which establish the typical prejudice brought to bear by jurors against Black defendants in court proceedings. The testimony of the Landlord and his contractor as to the "unattractive" nature of the Tenant's clientele to other users of the Plaza bears close resemblance to these longtime, well-known biases. As Tulloch J. has noted, "Members of Black communities also recount a long history of discrimination, oppression, and marginalization, the effects of which resonate to this day."[^10]
[37] The urgency of recognizing these societal facts has only increased since the Parks decision some 25 years ago. In 2016, the Law Society published its Final Report on Challenges Faced by Racialized Licensees (Working Group, Equity and Aboriginal Issues Committee), in which lawyers were admonished, at pp. 5-6, to work toward, inter alia, inclusive workplaces in Ontario and reduction of societal barriers created by racism, unconscious bias and discrimination.
The principle which the Law Society pronounced can be extended to include Black businesspeople such as the Tenants, who often face discrimination challenges unique to their position in society. The Prime Minister of Canada has echoed this view in [page365] a recent policy announcement, making the prescient observation that Black entrepreneurs require "justice against a system that has locked out far too many Black entrepreneurs and denied them the same opportunities as other Canadians".[^11]
VI. The Tenant's Need for Relief
[38] While a single adjudication dealing with a discreet conflict between a commercial Landlord and Tenant cannot possibly address society's many challenges with respect to racial justice, it equally cannot ignore them. At the very least, the societal realities pertaining to Black businesspeople like the Tenants must be factored into the exercise of the court's discretion in considering equitable remedies like injunctions and relief from forfeiture.
[39] Section 98 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43 provides that a court "may grant relief against penalties and forfeitures, on such terms as to compensation or otherwise as are considered just". The justice considerations in such a case entails, among other things, an assessment of the good faith of the parties.[^12]
[40] In the present situation, the Tenant has shown good faith in attempting to communicate its desire to renew the lease, and even after being rebuffed consistently paying the elevated rent charged by the Landlord. As already indicated, this has continued throughout the pandemic lockdown, when restaurants were closed to their patrons and were limited to takeout business only. This evidence of a consistently good business supports the Tenant's description of its establishment as an eatery, not a stand-alone bar, where people order food even when the bar is closed due to pandemic-related public health protocols.
[41] The equities, as well as the balance of convenience, weigh in the Tenant's favour. There is, objectively speaking, no prejudice to the Landlord in allowing the Tenant to remain as a rent-paying tenant of the Premises at the present base rent and additional rent, plus any applicable HST. Terminating the Tenant's tenancy under present circumstances risks giving force to the Landlord's subjective, if perhaps unconscious prejudices. [page366]
[42] On the other hand, if the tenancy were ended now, while the Tenant is in good standing in every respect, the Tenant would suffer irreparable harm. That is, it would lose not only its substantial investment in the Premises, but the goodwill associated with its well-established location. Its owners and customers would also suffer the indignity of being excluded from the Premises based on what can be seen as a form of bias which Ontario law rejects.
[43] Given the potential irreparable harm to the Tenant and the balance of convenience in the Tenant's favor, the test for injunctive relief has been met.[^13] Likewise, given the fact that the Tenant appears to have been denied its right to renew not because of anything it did or anything in its control, and the lack of any real prejudice to the Landlord, the test for relief from forfeiture has been met.[^14]
VII. Disposition
[44] The Tenant's term under the Lease shall be deemed to continue until July 31, 2022, which is the date when its first five-year extension would have ended. All other terms and conditions of this ongoing tenancy shall be the same as in the Lease, including the option under art. 1.1(k) of the Lease for a second five-year renewal.
[45] For the duration of the Tenant's tenancy as set out above, the Landlord and Manager are enjoined from terminating the tenancy and repossessing the Premises except where acting strictly in accordance with the terms of the Lease and respecting all rights of the Tenant thereunder and otherwise at law.
[46] Counsel may make written submissions with respect to costs.
[47] The cost submissions should be no more than two pages in length (not counting the Bill of Costs) and may be sent by e-mail directly to my assistant. I would ask that counsel for the Tenant send his submissions (with a copy to Landlord/ Manager's counsel) by two weeks from today, and that counsel for the Landlord and Manager send his submissions (with a copy to Tenant's counsel) within two weeks thereafter.
Application allowed.
[^1]: Ontario (Attorney General) v. 8477 Darlington Crescent, 2011 ONCA 36, at para. 87. [^2]: Saskatchewan River Bungalows Ltd. v. Maritime Life Assurance Co., 1994 100 (SCC), [1994] 2 S.C.R. 490, [1994] S.C.J. No. 59. [^3]: Velouté Catering Inc. v. Bernardo (2016), 135 O.R. (3d) 32, 2016 ONSC 7281, at paras. 32-33. [^4]: P. Fournier, "The Ghettoization of Difference in Canada: 'Rape by Culture' and the Danger of a 'Cultural Defence' in Criminal Trials" (2002), 29 Man. L.J. 81, 84. [^5]: R. v. Find, 2001 SCC 32, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 863, [2001] S.C.J. No. 34, at para. 48. [^6]: LSUC v. McSween, 2012 ONLSAP 3, 2012 ONLSAP 0003, at para. 45 (per C. Ruby and C. Backhouse, dissenting). [^7]: R. v. Parks (1993), 1993 3383 (ON CA), 15 O.R. (3d) 324, [1993] O.J. No. 2157. [^8]: B. McLachlin, "Stereotypes: Their Uses and Misuses" (Address to the McGill University Human Rights Forum, November 1992), p. 11. [^9]: Supra, note 7. [^10]: M. Tulloch, Report of the Independent Police Oversight Review (Queen's Printer for Ontario, 2017), at para. 24. [^11]: "Trudeau unveils $221M for Canada's 1st Black Entrepreneur Program", Canadian Press, September 10, 2020. [^12]: Beaver Fuels Management Ltd. v. Baker's Dozen Holdings Corp., [2006] O.J. No. 5743 (S.C.J.). [^13]: RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), 1994 117 (SCC), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 311, [1994] S.C.J. No. 17. [^14]: Greenwin Construction Co. v. Stone & Webster Canada Ltd. (2001), 2001 27993 (ON SC), 55 O.R. (3d) 345, [2001] O.J. No. 290, at para. 26.