Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CV-21-00667682-0000

DATE: 2021-12-14

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: 2464212 ONTARIO LTD. c.o.b. SALON DAVACHI

AND:

NAJEMEH REZAINIA-TAJALLI

BEFORE: VERMETTE J.

COUNSEL: Varoujan Arman, for the Plaintiff

Paul Dollak, for the Defendant

HEARD: December 7, 2021

ENDORSEMENT

[1] The Plaintiff used to carry on business as a hair and beauty salon from leased premises located in Yorkville in Toronto (“Leased Premises”). It seeks a mandatory interlocutory order requiring the Defendant, the landlord, to immediately restore the Plaintiff’s access and possession to the Leased Premises. In the alternative, in the event it is found to be in breach of the lease, the Plaintiff seeks relief from forfeiture. The Plaintiff also seeks other orders, including an order for damages.

Factual background

a. The parties

[2] Floora Dadashpour Davachi is the principal and owner of the Plaintiff, which carries on business under the name “Salon Davachi”. Ms. Davachi is a hairdresser by background and profession. She founded Salon Davachi in 2016, when the Plaintiff first became a tenant at the Leased Premises.

[3] The Defendant owns the four-storey property where the Leased Premises are located (“Property”). She is also a hairdresser and rents a salon in a different location.

b. The 2016 Lease

[4] The parties entered into a commercial lease agreement made as of January 1, 2016 for the lease by the Plaintiff of the Leased Premises for a term of five years commencing on January 1, 2016 and ending on December 31, 2020 (“2016 Lease”). The 2016 Lease was prepared by the Defendant or her representative.

[5] Under the 2016 Lease, the Plaintiff was required to pay as additional rent 33% of the water and gas costs incurred at the Property and 33% of the total yearly property tax bills for the Property. Section 2(7) of the 2016 Lease states the following with respect to the payment of additional rent:

Additional Rent or portion thereof may, at the sole discretion of the Landlord be payable in monthly instalments in advance on the same dates stipulated for payment of Rent in Section 2(2) and the Landlord shall at least once each year provide the Tenant with a statement providing such information as may be required to calculate accurately the amounts Payable by the Tenant as Additional Rent […].

[6] The 2016 Lease granted to the Plaintiff a single five-year renewal term option. Section 14 of the 2016 Lease provides as follows:

(1) Provided the Tenant is not then in default of this Lease and has not been habitually in default of this Lease during the Term, the Tenant shall have the right to renew this Lease for one (1) further term of five (5) years upon the same terms and conditions as contained herein save for:

(a) the amount of rent to be paid;

(b) any further right of renewal; and

(c) if, during this renewal period, the Landlord in her sole discretion shall desire to (i) undertake any substantial alterations or renovations of or to the Property or any part of the Property (ii) demolish the Property or any part of the Property or (iii) sell the Property, then the Landlord shall be entitled, at her sole discretion, to terminate this Lease including any option to renew or extend the Lease, by written notice to the Tenant and without any obligation whatsoever on the part of the Landlord. Such written notice shall be given by the Landlord to the Tenant at least six (6) months prior to the effective date of termination of this Lease as set out in such written notice.

(2) The rent to be paid by the Tenant for such renewal term shall be agreed upon between the parties hereto at least three (3) months prior to the commencement of the renewal term, based upon prevailing market rents for similar premises and failing such agreement shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitrations Act (Ontario). The decision of any arbitration panel shall be final and binding upon the parties hereto. If the Tenant wishes to exercise his rights of renewal he shall deliver written notice to the Landlord to such effect at least six (6) months prior to the expiration of the Term. In any event, the rent during any option period shall not be less than the rent paid during the last year of the Term.

[7] Section 10 of the 2016 Lease (“Acts of Default and Landlord’s Remedies”) reads, in part:

(1) An Act of Default has occurred when:

(a) the Tenant has failed to pay Rent for a period of fifteen (15) consecutive days, regardless of whether demand for payment has been made or not;

(b) The Tenant has breached his covenants or failed to perform any of his obligations under this Lease; and

(i) the Landlord has given notice specifying the nature of the default and the steps required to correct it; and

(ii) the Tenant has failed to correct the default as required by the notice;

(2) When an Act of Default on the part of the Tenant has occurred:

(a) the current month’s rent together with the next three (3) months’ rent shall become due and payable immediately; and

(b) the Landlord shall have the right to terminate this Lease and to re-enter the Premises and deal with them as it may choose.

(3) If, because an Act of Default has occurred, the Landlord exercises its right to terminate this Lease and re-enter the Premises prior to the end of the Term, the Tenant shall nevertheless be liable for payment of Rent and all other amounts payable by the Tenant in accordance with the provisions of this Lease until the Landlord has re-let the Premises or otherwise dealt with the Premises in such manner that the cessation of payments by the Tenant will not result in loss to the Landlord and the Tenant agrees to be liable to the Landlord, until the end of the Term of this Lease for payment of any difference between the amount of Rent hereby agreed to be paid for the Term hereby granted and the Rent any new tenant pays to the Landlord.

[8] The evidence shows that the Plaintiff was late paying rent on numerous occasions during the 2016 Lease, including before the COVID-19 pandemic.

c. The 2021 Lease

[9] On June 13, 2020, while the 2016 Lease was still in force, the parties signed an OREA [Ontario Real Estate Association] Agreement to Lease Commercial – Long Form dated June 8, 2020 (“2021 Lease”). The 2021 Lease was for a five-year term commencing on January 1, 2021 and expiring on December 31, 2025.

[10] The parties disagree as to whether the 2021 Lease was a renewal of the 2016 Lease or a “fresh” or “new” lease. The 2021 Lease incorporates by reference the terms and conditions of the 2016 Lease. Section 8 of the 2021 Lease provides the following:

SCHEDULES: The Schedules attached hereto shall form an integral part of this Agreement to Lease and consist of: Schedule(s) “ORIGINAL LEASE” Refer to original commercial lease dated January 1, 2016. Page [sic] 1-16 inclusive

[11] Under the 2021 Lease, the Plaintiff is required to pay as additional rent 20% of the water costs incurred at the Property, 30% of the gas costs incurred at the Property, and 30% of the total yearly property tax bills for the Property.

[12] The 2021 Lease includes the following renewal clause:

Provided the Tenant is not at any time in default of any covenants within the Lease, the Tenant shall be entitled to renew this Lease for one additional term(s) of 60 months (each) on written notice to the Landlord given not less than 12 months prior to the expiry of the current term at a rental rate to be negotiated. In the event the Landlord and Tenant can not agree on the fixed minimum rent at least two months prior to expiry of the current lease, the fixed minimum rent for the renewal period shall be determined by arbitration in accordance with the Arbitration Act or any successor or replacement act.

[13] Sections 14 and 18 of the 2021 Lease state:

14. EXECUTION OF LEASE: The Lease shall be prepared by the Landlord at the Landlord’s expense, in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. The Lease will be signed and executed by both parties hereto prior to the commencement of work on the premises by either party and prior to occupancy by the Tenant.

15. AGREEMENT IN WRITING: If there is any conflict or discrepancy between any provision added to this Agreement (including any Schedule attached hereto) and any provision in the standard pre-set portion hereof, the added provision shall supersede the standard pre-set provision to the extent of such conflict or discrepancy. This Agreement, including any Schedule attached hereto, shall constitute the entire Agreement between Landlord and Tenant. There is no representation, warranty, collateral agreement or condition, which affects this Agreement other than as expressed herein. This Agreement shall be read with all changes of gender or number required by the context.

[14] There is no evidence that any other or “formal” lease agreement was signed in accordance with section 14.

[15] The evidence shows that, under the 2021 Lease, the Plaintiff did not pay rent for January and February 2021 until February 25, 2021.

d. Participation in COVID-19 assistance programs

[16] During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Defendant assisted the Plaintiff by applying for the Canada Emergency Commercial Rent Assistance (“CECRA”) program. The application was successful. After the CECRA program was terminated and replaced by the Canada Emergency Rent Subsidy (“CERS”) program, the Plaintiff submitted applications for the period September 24, 2020 to April 10, 2021.

[17] The record before me does not include any evidence that the Plaintiff’s applications were approved, or that proof of approval of the Plaintiff’s applications for financial assistance under the CERS program was provided to the Defendant. Proof of approval of the applications for financial assistance under the CERS program was requested by the Defendant’s lawyer, but never received. However, the evidence shows that the Defendant was aware that the Plaintiff had applied for CERS.

e. Events in early 2021

[18] In February 2021, the Defendant listed the Property for sale for a price of $6,988,800. Her son, Navid Tajalli, was the listing real estate agent.

[19] On or around March 10, 2021, the Defendant had a discussion with Ms. Davachi at the Leased Premises during which they had a disagreement regarding rent. There is disputed evidence as to what was said during that meeting and whether Ms. Davachi offered a cheque for the March 2021 rent to the Defendant at that time.

[20] On March 11, 2021, Ms. Davachi left a voicemail message to the Defendant advising that she had started looking for another space and wanted to leave the Leased Premises. She stated that she might look for a chair to rent from someone or partner with them. She offered to leave in exchange for $5,000.00 from the Defendant for the sinks, shelves, beds and other items in the Leased Premises.

[21] On March 23, 2021, Mr. Tajalli met with Ms. Davachi at the Leased Premises. On behalf of the Defendant, he offered to pay to the Plaintiff $20,000 in exchange for a surrender of the 2021 Lease. Ms. Davachi declined this offer. She gave Mr. Tajalli rent cheques for the months of March and April 2021, which he took with him.

f. Notice of Default dated March 29, 2021

[22] On March 29, 2021, the Defendant delivered a notice of default to the Plaintiff (“Notice of Default”). The Notice of Default demanded payment of $32,691.57 by April 1, 2021. It enclosed the March and April 2021 rent cheques which were returned to the Plaintiff.

[23] The Notice of Default refers to the 2016 Lease in the Re: line. It states the following:

We are the solicitors for the Landlord of the above-noted Premises. We have been notified by the Landlord that you are in default in the performance of your obligations under the Lease as set out below.

Without limiting any other default under the Lease, for the period of January 1, 2020 through to March 1, 2021, you have failed to pay all minimum rents and additional rents (i.e., hydro charges, water consumption charges, and property taxes) (“Additional Rent”) with respect to the Premises, which are your responsibility under the Lease. As of the date of this notice, the amount owing by you, in respect of the foregoing is $11,268.27 (“the Arrears”). Attached as Schedule “A” to this letter is a breakdown of Arrears.

Under section 10 of the Lease, where default occurs for failure to pay rent for a period of fifteen (15) consecutive days, the current months’ [sic] rent, along with the next three (3) months’ rent shall become due and payable immediately and the landlord shall have the right to terminate this Lease and to re-enter the Premises and deal with the property as it may choose.

Accordingly, in addition to the Arrears noted above, you are required to pay the next three months’ rent together with the Arrears in the total sum of $32,691.57.

For the period between January 2018 through to December 2019, each and every month you were consistently in [sic] late in providing payment of Rent and Additional Rent in accordance with the terms of the Lease. At the onset of Covid-19 lockdown, the Landlord assisted you by enrolling in the government rent subsidy program and accepted partial rent, yet you continued late payment of rent. Further, for the period of January 2020 through to March 2021, you have outright refused to pay for the increase in property taxes, which you are responsible for under the terms of the Lease. In January and February 2021, you failed to pay rent again and refused to pay the readjustment on account of increased property taxes. In February, you were still behind on January rent and February rent until February 24, 2021 when only partial payment was made on account of both months. In good faith, the Landlord reduced your monthly rent by $1510 for each month in January and February 2021, as a one-time courtesy, and despite the Landlord’s reasonableness, you continued your default into the month of March 2021. The payment of March 2021 rent remains past due along with the increase due on account of property taxes for the 2020 - 2021 calendar year.

Given all that has transpired, the Landlord has consistently allowed a more than reasonable time for you to comply with their requests for payment of rent. Despite the continuous efforts made by the Landlord to assist and accommodate you over the years by providing credits to you, applying for government assistance, and allowing the Lease to continue for a renewed term, you continue to breach your obligations to the Landlord. You are currently in default and have habitually been in default throughout the term of the Lease. As such, you are not entitled to exercise any further option to renew remaining under Lease.

You are hereby required to forthwith remedy the aforementioned default by delivering to the Landlord, not later than Thursday, April 1, 2021 (“Due Date”) a certified cheque in the amount of $32,691.57 (“Balance Due”). If a certified cheque in the aforementioned amount is not received by said date, the Landlord will thereupon and thereafter have the right, without further notice, to exercise such remedies under the Lease or at law as it may be advised including, without limitation, the right to terminate the Lease and take possession of the Premises. The Landlord shall also be entitled to interest on the Balance Due from the Due Date, at the Bank of Canada’s Prime Rate plus 5%, in accordance with section 2(10) of the Lease.

In addition to the certified cheque noted above, we require the delivery of six (6) post-dated cheques for the remainder of the year in the total sum of $7,141.10 payable to the Landlord.

You are advised that the Landlord will not accept any part payment on account of the Balance Due. Enclosed is the return of two cheques issued to the Landlord on March 23, 2021 for partial payment of rent. These cheques are not acceptable to the Landlord.

Please note that any failure or delay by the Landlord in strictly enforcing performance by you of your obligations under the Lease, or the acceptance by the Landlord of any monies hereafter, or the incomplete remedying by you of the aforementioned default, will not constitute waiver of any of the Landlord’s rights under the Lease or at law pursuant to this notice, and the time period set out above for remedying said default will not thereby be extended. Should the Landlord or its representatives have any correspondence with you after delivery of this notice, those discussions will be without prejudice to all of the Landlord’s rights under the Lease and at law including, without limitation, its rights pursuant to this notice.

This notice and any action taken hereafter shall be without prejudice to the Landlord’s rights to collect from you all other amounts which may be due and owing under the Lease, including and without limitation, any other arrears of rent, interest on arrears of rent, and the Landlord’s legal costs incurred in respect of the aforementioned default.

Kindly govern yourself accordingly. [Emphasis in the original.]

[24] The Schedule attached to the Notice of Default provides as follows:

1. 2020 tax is $74,091.58 / 3 = 24,697.19 2,058.10 / month - $1805 (taxes from 2016) = 253.10 253.10 x 14 months (Jan 2020-Feb 2021) = 3,543.40

2. Rent for March 2021 $6,888 + 253.10 = 7,141.10

3. Utilities; Jan 2021 and Feb 2021 $763.00 less credit (-224.23) Dec 2020; total due $583.77

4. Three months Rent for April to June (7,141.10 x 3 ) total due $21,423.30

TOTAL DUE IMMEDIATELY: $ 32,691.57 [Emphasis in the original.]

[25] The Plaintiff denies that it was in arrears of any rent or additional rent. Its position is that the Defendant erroneously calculated the amounts to be paid by the Plaintiff and that the Schedule attached to the Notice of Default contains many calculation errors. The Plaintiff also argues that the Notice of Default improperly includes amounts that relate to the 2016 Lease. Unfortunately, the Defendant’s evidence and submissions do not contain a detailed explanation of the calculations and/or do not directly respond to the alleged errors raised by the Plaintiff. I agree with the Plaintiff that, at a minimum, the calculations set out in the schedule raise a number of questions. The Plaintiff also alleges that she was not provided with supporting documentation, notably copies of the relevant property tax and utility bills, until after this litigation started.

g. March 29, 2021 Notice of Termination

[26] Also on March 29, 2021, the Defendant delivered a Notice of Termination to the Plaintiff advising that the 2021 Lease would be terminated effective October 1, 2021, as the Defendant wished to sell the property (“March 29, 2021 Notice of Termination”).

[27] The March 29, 2021 Notice of Termination refers to the 2016 Lease in the Re: line and states the following:

We are the solicitors for the Landlord of the above-noted Premises.

This letter shall serve as notice to the Tenant that the Landlord has elected to exercise its right, pursuant to section 14(1)(c) of the Lease, to terminate the Lease by reason of its intention to sell the Building. This shall confirm that your Lease is terminated effective October 1, 2021 (the “Effective Date of Termination”).

The Landlord reserves the right to view the Premises at reasonable hours and shall require vacant possession on the Effective Date of Termination. [Emphasis in the original.]

h. April 14, 2021 Notice of Termination

[28] One of the Plaintiff’s former lawyers exchanged e-mails with the Defendant’s lawyer regarding the Notice of Default. In these communications, the Plaintiff’s lawyer referred a few times to a potential application by the Plaintiff for relief from forfeiture. The Plaintiff was given one final opportunity to pay the arrears by no later than 3 p.m. on April 13, 2021, but it did not do so.

[29] On April 14, 2021, the Defendant delivered a Notice of Termination to the Plaintiff by posting it at the Leased Premises (“April 14, 2021 Notice of Termination”) and, on the same date, changed the locks to the Leased Premises. The April 14, 2021 Notice of Termination refers to the 2016 Lease in the Re: line and states that the lease is terminated as a result of the Plaintiff’s default in payment of rent owing to the Defendant in the amount of $32,691.57.

[30] In August 2021, the Defendant removed the Plaintiff’s signage from the outside of the Leased Premises. The Plaintiff’s display products were also cleared off of the shelves.

i. Alleged damages suffered by the Plaintiff

[31] Prior to June 30, 2021, the Plaintiff was unable to operate its business due to COVID-19 restrictions. On June 30, 2021, salons were allowed to reopen and operate in Ontario.

[32] It is the Plaintiff’s belief that it has lost many customers as a result of them being unable to book appointments when salons began to reopen on June 30, 2021 up until the present time, and that some of these customers will not ever return if they have already started going to competitors. Ms. Davachi’s evidence is that she is unable to determine the extent of the damage that has been done until she is able to reopen Salon Davachi for business because it is only then that she will know how many customers return.

j. Litigation

[33] The Statement of Claim was issued on August 25, 2021 and the Plaintiff’s motion record was served on August 30, 2021. The parties attended Civil Practice Court on August 31, 2021. Justice Dunphy made the following endorsement:

The plaintiff seeks an interim injunction re termination of a commercial lease. It is alleged that this is/was a protected tenancy under emergency regulations and relief from forfeiture or an injunction is sought.

The lease is a nail salon that was closed until June 30 and is the plaintiff’s sole source of income.

The landlord re-entered on April 15, 2021 following a March 30 notice. The tenant has taken no steps to seek an injunction or relief from forfeiture until these past days. Plaintiff’s counsel newly retained and will need time to get on top of the facts. In light of delay to date, urgency seems somewhat lacking.

The parties are directed to develop a case timetable and discuss how to move forward. This CPC motion is adjourned to be dealt with via a FRESH CPC application for September 14 with a fully discussed case timetable either agreed or at least with areas of disagreement noted and already discussed.

[34] The Plaintiff blames its former lawyers for the delay in moving for relief. It was represented by different legal counsel until mid-August. The Plaintiff became dissatisfied with its former counsel’s services and it took the Plaintiff some time to find and retain new counsel who then commenced this action and brought this motion.

Discussion

[35] In order to be successful on this motion, the Plaintiff has to overcome both: (a) the Notice of Default/April 14, 2021 Notice of Termination, and (b) the March 29, 2021 Notice of Termination. The latter provided that the 2021 Lease would be terminated effective October 1, 2021, as the Defendant wished to sell the Property. If the March 29, 2021 Notice of Termination was valid, the Plaintiff would have had to leave the Leased Premises by October 1, 2021, whether or not the Notice of Default and the April 14, 2021 Notice of Termination were valid. Thus, unless the March 29, 2021 Notice of Termination is shown to be invalid, the Plaintiff’s access and possession to the Leased Premises cannot be restored as the October 1, 2021 date has passed.

[36] The Plaintiff’s position is that the March 29, 2021 Notice of Termination is invalid because, in March 2021, the Defendant did not have the right to terminate the 2021 Lease in relation to a proposed sale of the Property.

[37] According to the Plaintiff, the 2021 Lease was not a renewal of the 2016 Lease. Rather, it was a new lease agreement which incorporated by reference the terms and conditions of the 2016 Lease, including section 14(1)(c) (reproduced in paragraph 6 above). The Plaintiff argues that based on the language of section 14(1)(c), which refers to termination “during this renewal period”, the Defendant’s right to terminate the 2021 Lease in order to sell the Property only applies during the renewal term (i.e. starting in January 2026), not during the initial term (i.e. 2021-2025).

[38] Thus, the Plaintiff’s position that the March 29, 2021 Notice of Termination is invalid rests entirely on the argument that the 2021 Lease is not a renewal of the 2016 Lease.

[39] On a motion for a mandatory interlocutory injunction, the moving party must show a strong prima facie case, i.e. the motion judge must be satisfied that there is a strong likelihood on the law and the evidence presented that, at trial, the moving party will be ultimately successful in proving the allegations set out in the Statement of Claim: see R. v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp., 2018 SCC 5 at paras. 15-16. The moving party must then convince the court that they will suffer irreparable harm if an injunction is refused, and that the balance of convenience favours the granting of the injunctive relief sought.

[40] In my view, the Plaintiff does not meet the strong prima facie case criterion with respect to the validity of the March 29, 2021 Notice of Termination and its position that the 2021 Lease was a new lease and not a renewal of the 2016 Lease. I am not satisfied that there is a strong likelihood on the law and the evidence presented that the Plaintiff will be ultimately successful on these issues at trial.

[41] With respect to the law, the Plaintiff did not put before the court cases dealing with the issue of “lease renewal vs. new lease”. While the Plaintiff referred to the case Sam-Sor Enterprises Inc. v. Gill, 1996 CarswellOnt 2570 (Gen. Div.) where Greer J. mentioned that the “new lease was not simply a renewal of the old lease but was a new lease with new terms”, there is no substantive discussion of this issue in the reasons, and the factual information provided regarding the “old lease”, the “new lease” and the circumstances surrounding the execution of the “new lease” is very limited.

[42] With respect to the facts, I note the following:

a. The 2021 Lease was executed on June 13, 2020, while the 2016 Lease was still in force, and just a couple of weeks before the deadline for the Plaintiff to exercise its right of renewal (i.e. six months prior to the expiration of the term on December 31, 2020).

b. The 2021 Lease incorporates by reference the terms and conditions of the 2016 Lease.

c. The 2021 Lease refers to the 2016 Lease as the “original lease”.

d. No new lease agreement was prepared or executed. The parties simply used the OREA Agreement to Lease Commercial – Long Form, and attached the 2016 Lease as a schedule.

e. The 2021 Lease contains new terms regarding the amount of rent to be paid and a different renewal clause. Pursuant to section 14(1) of the 2016 Lease, these terms and conditions (i.e. rent and right of renewal) did not have to be the same in the “renewed lease” as in the 2016 Lease.

[43] In light of the foregoing, it is my view that there are significant arguments in favour of the conclusion that the 2021 Lease was a renewal of the 2016 Lease and that, as a result, the Defendant had the right to exercise her right to terminate the 2021 Lease under section 14(1)(c).

[44] Given that the March 29, 2021 Notice of Termination is not based on an alleged breach of the 2021 Lease, the Plaintiff’s request for relief from forfeiture does not assist her.

[45] Neither does the legislative protections afforded to commercial tenants due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Plaintiff relies on the provisions of the Commercial Tenancies Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.7 (“CTA”) that protect certain tenancies from termination during the prescribed non-enforcement period (ss. 79-86). Section 2 of Ontario Regulation 763/20 sets out the criteria that a tenancy must satisfy in order to benefit from the protections set out in these provisions of the CTA. There are three criteria:

a. The tenant has been approved to receive CERS.

b. The tenant has provided proof of the approval to their landlord.

c. Not more than 12 weeks have passed since the day the tenant was approved.

[46] As stated above, the record before me does not include any evidence that the Plaintiff’s applications under the CERS program were approved or that proof of approval was provided to the Defendant. The Plaintiff did not even adduce in evidence bank records showing that she had received cheques or payments.

[47] The Plaintiff’s reliance on the case Blue Health Consultants v. Blue Health Services, 2021 ONSC 2841 is misplaced because, in that case, there was evidence that: (a) the tenant had been approved to receive a CERS rent subsidy; and (b) the landlord was aware of the approval and receipt based on information he was copied on: see paras. 22-23, 40. There is no such evidence in this case.

[48] The Plaintiff’s claim for damages cannot be addressed on this interlocutory motion. This is not a motion for summary judgment. The issues related to the Notice of Default/April 14, 2021 Notice of Termination and whether the Plaintiff is entitled to damages will be determined at a later stage in this action.

Conclusion

[49] Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s motion is dismissed.

[50] If costs cannot be agreed upon, the Defendant shall deliver submissions of not more than three pages (double-spaced), excluding the costs outline, within 14 days of the date of this endorsement. The Plaintiff shall deliver its submissions (with the same page limit) within 10 days of its receipt of the Defendant’s submissions.

Vermette J.

Date: December 14, 2021