Stéphane MacLean

A commercial tenant operating a pizza restaurant sought relief from forfeiture after failing to provide written notice to renew its lease within the required eight-month notice period.

The tenant had operated the business for 12 years, invested approximately $100,000 in renovations, and expressed its intention to renew to the landlord's property manager.

The tenant missed the December 31, 2024 deadline due to illness and inadvertence, but immediately sought to renew upon being notified of the missed deadline in February 2025.

The landlord had subsequently leased the premises to a neighbouring business.

The court granted relief from forfeiture, finding that the tenant exercised due diligence, acted in good faith, and that the circumstances warranted equitable intervention.

This case involved two consolidated applications under the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992, where two parents each sought to be appointed sole guardian of property and personal care for their adult son with autism.

The court found the son incapable of managing his property and personal care (except clothing).

The decision focused on determining which parent was more likely to fulfill the duties of a guardian, including fostering contact with family and friends, consulting with supportive individuals, and promoting the son's independence.

The court gave limited weight to the son's expressed wishes due to concerns about their independence and potential influence.

Ultimately, the court appointed the mother as the sole guardian, concluding that it was in the son's best interest and that she was more likely to fulfill the guardian's duties effectively.

This application arose from the respondents' failure to close on a residential real estate transaction.

The applicants sought a declaration that their $15,000 deposit be forfeited and substantial damages.

The respondents admitted breach and entitlement to the deposit but disputed the scope and quantum of damages, arguing the issues should proceed to trial rather than be resolved on application.

The court declared the deposit forfeited to the applicants as a credit towards damages but ordered that the remaining issues concerning the scope and quantum of damages, including mitigation, be converted into an action and proceed to trial, finding material facts in dispute.