Court File and Parties
Court File No.: CV-24-00726231 Date: 2024-08-30 Ontario Superior Court of Justice
Between: I Land Corp, Applicant – and – 1980976 Ontario Inc., Respondent
Counsel: Oliver Gordon, for the Applicant Ali Jama in person, for the Respondent
Heard: August 30, 2024
Before: Papageorgiou J.
Endorsement
[1] The Applicant landlord Land Corp (the “Landlord”) brought an urgent application against its tenant 1980976 Ontario Inc. (the “Tenant”) for an order requiring it to comply with orders made by a Toronto Environmental Officer which Order required certain steps by August 16, 2024.
[2] In that regard, the Tenant uses the leased premises for automotive-related activities including storage and maintenance of vehicles.
[3] On August 5, 2024, there was a fire on the leased premises causing extensive damage. The cause is unknown but the fire resulted in substantial environmental concerns and potential violation of fire safety regulations.
[4] An inspection done by a Toronto Environmental Officer on August 12, 2024 revealed the presence of a dark, thick substance emitting a petroleum odour on the leased premises. It was identified as contaminated fire douse water, which had likely been used to extinguish the fire but had since become a hazardous environmental contaminant.
[5] The inspection also showed that there were five vehicles parked outside the building, with an unknown number of additional vehicles located within the interior of the severely damaged structure. An Order issued by the Officer required the following:
- All remaining waste, including vehicle batteries, automotive fluids, and other hazardous materials were to be removed from the property by August 16, 2024.
- The submission of a comprehensive plan assessing the potential offsite environmental impacts and taking all necessary steps to prevent such impacts. This was to be submitted to the Environmental Compliance Officer Brad Walker for approval.
[6] The Tenant appeared today unrepresented.
[7] The Tenant’s position is that the Order was made against the Landlord not the Tenant. The Landlord’s position is the lease requires the Tenant to conduct these repairs. In any event the five cars parked at the entrances are preventing the Landlord from taking the required steps.
[8] Today, the Tenant advised that it had removed and/or was in the process of removing all vehicles that block the entrances so that the Landlord can take remediative action required.
[9] The Landlord is satisfied with this at present as it will permit the Landlord to enter the leased premises and take action to comply with the Order made. It says that it can reserve its rights to payment for what it does and pursue that as against the Tenant at a later date.
[10] I am adjourning this matter on the basis of the Tenant’s submission but directing that the Landlord may bring this matter back to Court on an urgent basis if the Leased Premises are still blocked and it cannot take the required action.
[11] I am seized of this matter if it returns for any reason.
Papageorgiou J. Released: August 30, 2024
Reasons for Judgment
Ontario Superior Court of Justice
Between: I Land Corp, Applicant – and – 1980976 Ontario Inc., Respondent
Reasons for Judgment Papageorgiou J. Released: August 30, 2024