COURT FILE NO.: CV-22-3832
DATE: 20230209
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: 2567267 Ontario Inc. O/A/ DBA ZOOMX LOGISTICS, Applicant
AND:
Saverio Lucia Holdings Ltd., Respondent
BEFORE: The Honourable Justice Tzimas
COUNSEL: Prabhjot Badesha, for the Applicant
Domenic Saverino, for the Defendant
HEARD: January 9, 2023
E N D O R S E M E N T
INTRODUCTION
[1] The Applicant, 2567267 Ontario Inc. O/A DBA ZOOMX LOGISTICS, (ZoomX), brought an Application for a declaration that it is in compliance with its lease agreement with Saverio Lucia Holdings Ltd., (the Landlord), made on May 1, 2022 in relation to an interior office space of 1,200 square feet and 2.5 acres of vacant exterior storage area at 5 Betomat Court, Caledon, Ontario, (the leased premises). Alternatively, ZoomX seeks an order for relief from forfeiture after being locked out of the said premises.
[2] The Landlord opposed the application. It alleged that ZoomX breached the terms of its lease when it sublet the leased premises without any notification to the landlord. The Landlord also raised concerns with the accumulating debris outside of the leased premises.
[3] The Landlord locked ZoomX out of its premises on December 29, 2022. ZoomX’s urgent Application came to the court’s attention that afternoon, after ZoomX was locked out of its premises. An initial court attendance was arranged for the following day. On December 30, 2022, I issued an interim order that enabled ZoomX to gain access to its premises and resume its operations. My endorsement of that date included certain strict conditions to be followed by the parties as well as a timetable for the argument of the Application on its merits.
[4] The Application was argued on January 9, 2023. On that date, although I reserved my decision on the merits, I extended the interim conditions contained in my endorsement of December 30, 2022 and included some additional conditions related to the removal of the remaining vehicles and some outstanding payments.
[5] For the reasons that follow, I conclude that on the evidence before the court, ZoomX did not breach the terms of the lease and therefore, the Landlord should never have terminated the lease. The Landlord could have raised concerns about ZoomX’s use of the premises, which allowed certain related towing companies to park several damaged vehicles, however, such a breach was never advanced. In the result, the lease between the parties remains in full force and effect. Moreover, as anticipated in my endorsement of December 30, 2022, the interim conditions permitting the Landlord to hire an arms-length security supervisor for the leased premises is at an end. ZoomX is to resume its quiet enjoyment of the leased premises in accordance with its lease agreement forthwith.
BACKGROUND FACTS
[6] The following facts are not in dispute. Zoom X entered into a lease with the Landlord on May 1, 2022 for certain lands and premises located at 5 Betomat Court, Caledon, Ontario for a two-year term. ZoomX intended to use the leased premises to operate a Transportation and Logistics business.
[7] The lease included a number of tenant covenants. Those relevant to this application are as follows:
9 (p) Assignment
i. The tenant will not assign, set over, transfer, sub-let or sub-lease; hypothecate, encumber or in any way deal with or part with the whole or any part with the whole of the Leased Premises to anyone, for or during the whole or any part of this term, without the written consent of the landlord first having been obtained which consent shall not be reasonably withheld or delayed.
ii. In considering whether to give its consent the landlord may have regard to the financial status, credit rating, reputation and past business record of the proposed assignee or sublessee and its key employees, proposed use, sublessee and any other factors which the landlord, in its sole discretion, considers relevant tennt will provide the landlord with all information requested by the landlord, acting reasonably, in order to enable the landlor to consider the request for consent.
9 (q) USE
The tenant shall not use the leased Premises for any purpose other than for truck and trailer parking and accompanying administration/ office area and for no other purposes whatsoever.
The tenant confirms and acknowledges that it has satisfied itself that use set out above is permitted by and complies with all applicable zoning and use by-laws.
The tenant shall have the exclusivity of transport, truck & chassis paring and outside storage for the building and the land.
9 (w) OUTSIDE MAINTENANCE
The tenant shall not place on the roads, parking lots, sidewalks, boulevard arear or delivery areas any debris, refuse waste, materials, garbage, skids, equipment furniture, vehicles or any other loose or objectionable materials except as deposited in areas indicated by the landlord in proper receptables or containers placed for that purpose by the tenant and the tenant agrees to leave all driveways, parking areas and boulevard and landscaped areas free and clear of any debris, refuse, water materials, garbage, skids, equipment, furniture or other loose or objectionable materials. In the event that the tenant fails to comply with said provision, the landlord or the Landlord’s agent may but shall not be required to, on fifteen (15) days prior notice and without liability, remove such debris refuse, waste material, garbage, skids equipment, furniture, vehicles or any other loose objectionable materials or may order a proper receptacle and ten tenant shall forthwith reimburse the landlord for all costs and expenses incurred together with an administration fee of 15%, of all such costs and expenses which shall be paid to the landlord, on demand, as additional rent. […]
[8] The lease agreement also included the following specific termination terms in the event of the tenant’s default:
11(i) TENANT’s DEAFULT AND LANDLORD REMEDIES
The tenant shall be in default under the lease, if the tenant fails:
A) To make any payment of rent, in whole or in part, for five (5) days after its due date; or
B) To perform or observe any other covenants, provisos or agreements contained in this lease and such failure shall continue for fifteen (15) days after notice of default is given to the tenant or if such failure shall continue for fifteen (15) days after notice of default is given to the tenant or if such failure is not capable of being rectified within such fifteen (15) day period, such longer period as is reasonable in the circumstances, which period will not exceed sixty (60) days, provided that the tenant shall have commenced rectifying such failure within the initial fifteen (15) day period and shall be diligently pursuing rectification.
Upon the tenant being in default as hereinbefore provided, in subparagraph 11(i)(A) and (B). The landlord shall have the following remedies in each such case:
Termination
(1) The landlord may without further notice terminate this lease, in which case the then current month’s rent and the next ensuing three month’s rent and any other payments for which the tenant is liable shall apportion and paid in full to the date of termination, together with the reasonable expenses of the landlord attributable to the termination and the tenant shall immediately deliver up possession of the leased premises to the landlord. It is agreed, acknowledged and understood by the tenant that the termination of the lease will be without prejudice to any other rights or remedies the landlord may have pursuant to this lease or otherwise enter the leased premises and perform.
[9] It is not disputed that in early December 2022, signs for the towing businesses, Captain Roadside Inc., Denali Roadside Inc., and Nearby Towing, were posted at the entrance of leased premises. The Landlord’s representative, Ms. Gullusci relied on those signs, as well as the coming and going of tow trucks with damaged vehicles to conclude that ZoomX entered into a sublease with one or more of those companies, contrary to the terms of the lease agreement.
[10] ZoomX’s representative offered a very different explanation. Mr. Sidhu explained that he had 50% ownership interests in these companies. The other owner was Sukhbir Singh, who Mr. Sidhu described as a close friend who would do anything that he asked him to do. Mr. Sidhu acknowledged that because of an unexpected surge in their towing business, he agreed that the companies could park some of the overflow vehicles at the ZoomX premises on a temporary basis and until they could secure a more permanent arrangement.
[11] In her evidence Ms. Gullusci introduced an unsigned lease agreement allegedly between ZoomX and North Track Transport Ltd. that she said she obtained from North Track’s principal, Mr. Bhupinder Ghotr, She sought to rely on that document to strengthen her contention that ZoomX had breached the terms to its lease. In response, Mr. Sidhu highlighted the absence of a signature on behalf of ZoomX. He also included in his evidence communications from representatives of the towing companies that indicated that none of them entered into any sublease agreements with ZoomX.
[12] The parties also disagreed on what was meant by the reference to the debris outside of the leased premises. The Landlord produced photographs and videos showing damaged vehicles being towed to the premises and some debris on the inside of the fences to the leased premises. As of Mr. Sidhu’s supplementary affidavit of January 4, 2023, Mr. Sidhu contended that he remained unaware of what debris the Landlord was referring to in the Notice of Termination.
[13] On December 7, 2022, the Landlord issued to ZoomX the following Notice of Termination of the lease:
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that as Tenant under the above-noted lease (the “Lease”), you are in breach of the following covenants:
Sub-Lease a portion of the Leased Premises to Sub-Tenant without first obtaining the written consent of the Landlord, in breach of paragraph 9(p)(i) of the Lease
Debris placed in outside areas of Leased Premises in breach of paragraph 9(w) of the Lease.
As you are in default under the Leasen, this is notice to you, 2567267 Ontario Inc. o/a DBA ZoomX Logistics, as tenant, that the Landlord intends to terminate the Lease effective as of December 22, 2022 (the “Termination Date”), pursuant to the Landlord’s rights under the Lease.
This is further notice to you, as Tenant, that the Landlord will be shall hold you liable for any and all damages resulting from the activities of the unlawful subtenant, including but not limited to any and all costs incurred as a result of cleaning up their possible contamination of the Leased Premises.
TAKE NOTICE THEREFORE that the Landlord intends to re-enter the Premises and take possession as of the Termination Date but, in so doing, the Landlord expressly preserves its right to look to you, as Tenant, for all Rent and all other charges and costs owing at the present time and throughout the balance of the Term of the Lease, as well as for all future earnings and losses as a result of the Landlord losing the benefit of the Lease over its unexpired Term, as well as all expenses incurred by or on behalf of the Landlord with respect to your defaults, including, without limitation, all professional and legal fees on a full indemnity basis.
Dated at Toronto this 7th day of December, 2022.
Saverio Lucia Holdings Ltd.
[14] According to Ms. Gullusci, ZoomX failed to take any action in response to the Notice of Termination until December 22, 2022. On that date, counsel acting on ZoomX’s behalf contacted the Landlord’s counsel to challenge the notice.
[15] Contrary to Ms. Gullusci’s contention, Mr. Sidhu said he reacted immediately and produced the text message he sent to Ms. Gullusci on December 8, 2022. In that communication, he denied entering into any sublease and asked Ms. Gullusci to clarify the allegations:
We didn’t give any portion or any sublease to one one. There is no lease agreement we did with no one. I well know that if I have to do rent out any thing I have to ask you first and get your approval first in order to sublease this
It’s our other business towing company and storage I can prove that
If you don’t like them I can remove their stuff Tommorrow or 1-2 days
But I can’t empty the yard till my lease expires with you and I didn’t do anything wrong. You can’t send that termination letter without giving us warning.
The stuff you don’t like in the yard. You can give me in written, I will get it fixed right way.
[16] On December 23, 2022, counsel for ZoomX advised that his client would be bringing an Application for relief from forfeiture. Counsel for the Landlord responded that the bailiff would not be attending on the premises to evict ZoomX until December 28, 2022. The bailiff attended on the morning of December 29, 2022. Although ZoomX served and filed its Application in the afternoon of Friday, December 23, 2022, with the intervening weekend and Christmas holiday break, the Application was brought to my attention in the afternoon of December 29, 2022. An urgent attendance was scheduled for the following day.
[17] On December 30, 2022 I ordered that the Landlord allow ZoomX to re-enter the leased premises, albeit on strict terms. Particulars were outlined in my endorsement of that date. I also scheduled the hearing of the Application on an emergency basis for January 9, 2023.
POSITION OF THE PARTIES
[18] ZoomX submitted that the Notice of Termination was fundamentally flawed, that ZoomX did not breach the terms of the lease as alleged by the Landlord, and that in any event, it should be relieved from forfeiture.
[19] The Landlord asked this court to dismiss the Application. In its view, the activities on the leased premises were sufficient to find the existence of either a sublease, contrary to the terms of the lease, or to deem the existence of a sublease. In further support of its position, the Landlord also relied on certain photographs and short video clips. Given ZoomX’s assignment of its rights to the leased premises by way of a sublease, the Landlord submitted that ZoomX could not rely on either s.20 of the Commercial Tenancies Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.7 or s.98 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990 c. C.43 to obtain relief from forfeiture.
ANALYSIS
[20] ZoomX’s Application raises the following issues: i. Did ZoomX sublease its own leased premises to one or more of the towing companies? ii. Did ZoomX fail to maintain the areas outside of the leased premises, as outlined in paragraph 9 (w)? iii. Was the Landlord’s Notice of Termination deficient?; and iv. Should ZoomX be relieved from forfeiture? I will proceed to consider each of these questions.
i. Did ZoomX sublease its own leased premises to one or more towing companies?
[21] The evidence before the court does not support a finding that ZoomX entered into any sublease with one or more of the towing companies. The evidence would support a finding that ZoomX used its leased premises for purposes in addition to its transportation and logistics business activities, but the Landlord did not complain about ZoomX’s use of the leased premises. It relied on those additional uses to infer the existence of a sublease.
[22] The Landlord was not wrong to question the relationship between ZoomX and the companies depicted in the signs that were posted at the front entrance of the leased premises. The Landlord was also not wrong to question ZoomX’s activities on the leased premises, given the towing and parking of several damaged vehicles at the leased premises. But it had insufficient evidence to infer that the activities on the premises amounted to a sublease arrangement between ZoomX and one or more of the four towing companies. Only the Landlord knows why it did not advance a breach of use of the leased premises.
[23] Insofar as the Landlord sought to rely on comments from unnamed individuals who said they were tenants, a business card for one of the towing companies, and an unsigned sublease, that evidence raised serious hearsay difficulties and was inadmissible. More significantly, the evidence, even if it were to be admitted, would not assist the Landlord; the conversations associated with the documents occurred after the issuing of the Notice of Termination and therefore would undermine the position that the Landlord had a basis on which to issue the Notice. For example, Ms. Gullusci met Mr. Ghotr and obtained a copy of an unsigned document, purporting to be an unsigned sublease on December 30, 2022. Her conversations with an unnamed individual from Captain Roadside inc. and the business card she obtained was also on December 30, 2022. Her subsequent conversation with somebody from Captain Roadside inc. was on January 3, 2023. These communications, if they were to be admitted would serve to confirm that as of December 7, 2022, the Landlord had no evidence of any sublease arrangement between ZoomX and one or more of the towing companies, to support the Notice of Termination.
[24] In contrast to the Landlord’s evidence, Mr. Sidhu offered a credible explanation of his relationship to the companies and why he permitted the towing companies to use ZoomX’s leased premises. The Landlord highlighted certain contradictions and confused responses by Mr. Sidhu during his cross-examination to suggest that Mr. Sidhu was not truthful in his evidence. The implication of that submission seemed to be that Mr. Sidhu understood that ZoomX and the towing companies were separate businesses and therefore, he would have required a sublease arrangement before he would allow the towing companies to store their vehicles on the leased premises.
[25] With the greatest respect, in my review of that evidence, the overriding take away was that as a 50% owner of the various towing companies, Mr. Sidhu considered them to be companies that were related to ZoomX. Moreover, in his description of his interactions with those companies, he clearly exercised significant control over them. But specifically in relation to his decision to allow the towed vehicles onto the leased premises, Mr. Sidhu’s very clear belief that the parking of the damaged vehicles was only a temporary arrangement in response to the unexpected surge in his towing business, put into question the need for a sublease arrangement. Nothing in the admissible evidence before the court suggests that Mr. Sidhu contemplated a sublease arrangement, much less that he entered into any such agreement. If anything, given the temporary arrangement, it made no sense that a sublease would even be required.
[26] Secondly, Mr. Sidhu’s spontaneous and immediate response in his text of December 8, 2022, denying any lease agreement with anyone and expressly acknowledging his obligations to obtain the Landlord’s consent, reinforces the inference that he did not contemplate any sublease. He did not wait to consult his lawyer to put out a formal response or protest. It is evident that he appreciated the need to respond immediately and he sought the corresponding clarification.
[27] Third, whether or not ZoomX and towing companies were separate business entities or related companies is of no moment. What is relevant and significant is Mr. Sidhu’s ability to prevail on the towing companies to remove their vehicles once he became aware of and understood the nature of the Landlord’s concerns. Although at the time the application was argued, the photographs suggested that there remained more than seven or eight vehicles to be removed, it was not disputed that most vehicles were already gone and that the remaining vehicles would be cleared within days.
[28] Related to the preceding point, however Mr. Sidhu described the relationship between ZoomX and the towing companies, there was no evidence that ZoomX ceded or assigned any rights or control of the premises to the towing companies. ZoomX gave permission to the towing companies to use the premises and ZoomX rescinded that permission once the Landlord raised its concerns.
[29] Counsel for the Landlord invited the court to deem the existence of a sublease on the basis of the towing trucks coming and going from the leased premises, the parked vehicles, and the signage at the front gates to the premises. However, no case was put forward in support of that proposition or on the indicia that the court could look at to make such a finding. Even without that guidance, objectively speaking, I would expect one such indicator to include a sublessee’s right to the exclusive use, enjoyment, and control of a subleased space. In this instance, there was no evidence that the towing companies maintained any exclusive control of either all or part of ZoomX’s leased premises. The towing companies were permitted to use the leased premises. In light of that permission, there was nothing untoward with them advertising their use of the premises. But when ZoomX asked them to leave, they complied. A sublessee, with a valid and enforceable sublease would not have left so quickly.
[30] Finally, insofar as Mr. Sidhu included in his evidence communications from the representatives of the towing companies, including Mr. Singh, to confirm that they had not entered into a sublease arrangement with ZoomX, as with Ms. Gullusci’s communications, those exchanges were also hearsay and could not be admitted into evidence. ZoomX could have asked the representatives to submit their own affidavits, especially since they are close associates. Although such evidence would have strengthened ZoomX’s overall position, its absence is not fatal to the determination of the issues in dispute.
ii. Did ZoomX place debris in areas outside of the Leased Premises in breach of paragraph 9 (w)?
[31] Even with the benefit of the Landlord’s photos and video evidence, I remain uncertain over what they intended to describe when they referred to “Debris placed in outside areas of Leased Premises in breach of paragraph 9(w) of the Lease” in the Notice of Termination. To begin with, no photos contemporaneous to the Notice of Termination were put into evidence to show the location of the debris.
[32] In its court submission, the Landlord’s counsel drew the court’s attention to a photograph at B160 of Caselines, which purported to show debris by a fence. Although the photo shows some debris, it is impossible to discern if the debris is on the outside or the inside of the leased premises. The situation of the transport trucks on the same side of the fence as the debris suggests that the debris is within the leased premises and therefore not in breach of the lease. More significantly, the particular photograph has a date stamp of January 1, 2023. The photo does not offer any insight on where the debris may have been located in and around the Notice of Termination, if there were any at all.
[33] In addition, the photos showing the signs from the towing companies do not show any debris. A photo date-stamped December, 1, 2022 shows some fence railings on the ground but here too, even if this were the debris that concerned the Landlord , it is impossible to say if the debris is located on the inside or the outside of the leased premises. Finally, if the Landlord intended to describe the damaged vehicles, as debris, those vehicles were parked within ZoomX’s premises.
[34] While I acknowledge ZoomX’s agreement to remove visible debris within their leased premises, in the absence of specific particulars of the alleged breach, there is no basis to conclude that ZoomX placed any debris in the areas outside of the Leased Premises, in breach of paragraph 9(w) of the lease.
iii. Was the Landlord’s Notice of Termination Deficient?
[35] The short answer to this question is “Yes”. This question goes to the sufficiency of the Notice of Termination and not to the actual validity of the alleged breaches.
[36] In accordance with section 19(2) of the Commercial Tenancies Act, a landlord’s right of re-entry or forfeiture for any breach of any condition in a lease, other than the payment of rent, is not enforceable unless the landlord provides written notice to the tenant specifying the breach and giving the tenant an opportunity to remedy the breach. In Martin v. Mailhot, 2020 ONCA 480, at para. 10, the Ontario Court of Appeal held that “the purpose of the notice requirement in s. 19(2) is “to warn the tenant that its leasehold interest is at risk and to give the tenant an opportunity to preserve that interest by remedying the breaches complained of and, where necessary, by compensating the landlord”: 780046 Ontario Inc. v. Columbus Medical Arts Building Inc. (1994), 1994 CanLII 1188 (ON CA), 20 O.R. (3d) 457 (C.A.), at p. 464. Courts have insisted on strict compliance with this requirement: Columbus, at p. 464; Jay-Pee Drycleaners Inc. v. 2321324 Ontario Inc., 2017 ONCA 798, at para. 19”.
[37] Courts have also held that the notice must be certain and unambiguous and provide the tenant with all the necessary information to ensure that the tenant is not misled, see Atkinson v. Metropolitan Toronto (Municipality) 1977 CanLII 30 (SCC), [1978 1 S.C.R. 918, at 926 and Bhagwandin v. Wright (1988), 1988 CanLII 4712 (ON CA), 65 O.R. (2d) 204.
[38] In this case, the Notice of Termination was defective in a number of ways; the Notice was neither precise nor informative. On the alleged sublease, the reference to the “subleasing of a portion of the leased premises”, was sparse. There were no details identifying what portion of the 2.5 acres of leased premises were subleased or to whom they were leased. Ms. Gullusci’s evidence that she obtained confirmation of a sublease in conversations with individuals after December 23, 2022, combined with the absence of any such evidence contemporaneous with the issuing of the Notice of December 7, 2022, verified that the Landlord did not have any evidence to support the alleged breach. The landlord had some limited photographs of the signage but nothing more. Perhaps the absence of such evidence may explain why the Landlord did not respond to Mr. Sidhu’s inquiries contained in his text of December 8, 2022. The Landlord had no details to offer.
[39] There were also no details in the Notice about the alleged debris outside of the leased premises. The Notice did not identify either the location of the debris or the type of debris. Did it consist of paper, plastic, skids, cans, or did it also include damaged vehicles? As with the deficiencies relating to the existence of a sublease, the Landlord’s photographs showing some debris, albeit within the leased premises, post-dated the Notice of Termination. A number of those photos had a date stamp of January 1, 2023. The photographs contemporaneous to the Notice of Termination did not show and debris. Indeed, in my review of Ms. Gullusci’s evidence, her primary concern rested with the existence of a sublease. She did not appear to be very concerned about any debris, leading me to wonder whether the inclusion of that breach was either an afterthought or a clumsy attempt to bolster the Notice of Temrination.
[40] Mr. Sidhu’s text message seeking clarification for the Notice of Termination underscored the deficiencies and captured his confusion over its contents. The immediacy of his response underscored his desire to respond to the allegations as soon as possible. Rather than respond to Mr. Sidhu’s inquiries, including his express denial of any sublease, Ms. Gullusci honoured Mr. Sidhu’s inquiries with her silence. Evidently, she hoped to prevent ZoomX from any ability to remedy the alleged breaches. More troubling was her attempt to mislead the court by failing to acknowledge Mr. Sidhu’s text message and alleging instead that ZoomX did nothing about the Notice until December 22, 2022, the date set as the deadline for ZoomX’s compliance. The net result of that silence was to postpone ZoomX’s ability to respond to the Landlord’s concerns and to cause ZoomX to incur unnecessary costs to seek the court’s intervention and protection.
iv. Should ZoomX be relieved from forfeiture?
[41] Given the preceding findings, there is no need to answer this last question. The Notice of Termination was invalid because of its deficiencies. Moreover, the Landlord failed to substantiate the alleged breaches. There was therefore no forfeiture to address.
CONCLUSION
[42] In light of the foregoing, the Lease Agreement between ZoomX and the Landlord remains in full force and effect. Insofar as ZoomX admitted to the improper use of the Lease Premises by allowing the towing companies to store their damaged vehicles, if it has not already done so, it shall complete the removal of all unauthorized vehicles as well as any signage related to the towing companies forthwith, and in any event, no later than February 14, 2023. The interim conditions in my endorsement of December 30, 2022 concerning the hiring of an arms-length security person by the Landlord is also at an end.
[43] Finally, given the outcome of the Application, ZoomX is entitled to costs. Having regard for counsel’s Bill of Costs, the comparative Bill of Costs filed by the Landlord, as well as the considerations outlined in Rule 57, I fix costs at $20,000 in favour of ZoomX, inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes.
[44] As a final observation and related to the cost award, this Application should never have been necessary. The Landlord’s sharp practices, as detailed in my endorsement of December 30, combined with the absence of any credible evidence to support the Notice of Termination and the attempt to mislead the court with the production of post-dated photographs, hearsay evidence, and the suggestion that ZoomX ignored the notice of Termination, when clearly that was not the case, was highly problematic. Such behaviour cannot be condoned by the court. Absent these concerns, the cost award would have been more modest.
Tzimas J.
DATE: February 9, 2023
COURT FILE NO.: CV-22-3832
DATE: 20230209
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: 2567267 Ontario Inc. O/A/ DBA ZOOMX LOGISTICS, Applicant
AND
Saverio Lucia Holdings Ltd., Respondent
BEFORE: The Honourable Justice Tzimas
COUNSEL: Prabhjot Badesha, for the Applicant
Domenic Saverino, for the Defendant
ENDORSEMENT
Tzimas J.
DATE: February 9, 2023