4 total
Appeal dismissed; plain meaning of commercial lease required tenant's prior approval for excess construction costs.
The appellant landlord appealed a decision finding the respondent tenant not liable for excess hard costs incurred in constructing a commercial building.
The dispute centered on a clause in the Offer to Lease requiring the tenant to pay excess costs provided they were in accordance with contracts approved by the tenant.
The appellant argued the clause was a meaningless vestige from an earlier draft, but the Court of Appeal disagreed, finding the plain meaning of the contract required the tenant's approval.
The appeal was dismissed, and the respondent's cross-appeal on costs was also dismissed.
Tenant not liable for construction cost overruns absent prior contractual approval.
The applicant landlord sought a determination that the tenant was required to contribute to construction cost overruns under two offers to lease for commercial space in a shopping centre.
The agreements provided that the tenant would pay excess hard construction costs above a specified amount per square foot if such costs were approved in advance by the tenant or incurred under approved contracts.
The court held that the tenant’s prior approval of construction contracts or excess costs was a clear condition precedent to any obligation to pay cost overruns.
Because the landlord failed to obtain such approval before construction was completed, the tenant was not liable for any excess costs.
The court also held, obiter, that if liability had arisen, the cost of constructing the underground garage would have been included as part of the hard construction costs.
Appeal dismissed; purchaser entitled to return of deposit as withdrawal occurred within the due diligence period.
The appellant appealed a decision regarding the interpretation of an agreement of purchase and sale.
The appellant had inserted an earlier date as the acceptance date, which would have shortened the 60-day due diligence period.
The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the contract was created on the date the written acceptance was delivered to the purchaser.
Consequently, the purchaser's withdrawal was within the due diligence period, and it was entitled to the return of its deposit.
The appeal was dismissed.
Motion for leave to intervene dismissed as the proposed intervener's case lacked sufficient commonality.
The City of Kingston moved for leave to intervene in an appeal between the City of Sudbury and Union Gas Limited regarding the interpretation of a franchise agreement and the jurisdiction of the Ontario Energy Board under s. 10 of the Municipal Franchises Act.
Kingston argued there was a common question of law with its own pending appeal involving Union Gas.
The court dismissed the motion, finding that the factual and legal contexts of the two proceedings were significantly different and that the disadvantages of permitting the intervention outweighed the advantages.
