Tiffany Soucy

The appellant landlord appealed a decision dismissing its application for a declaration that the respondent tenant's installation of an ATM violated the permitted use clause of their commercial lease.

The lease restricted the premises to use as a fast-food restaurant.

The application judge found the ATM was a business tool to keep costs low and did not change the purpose of the premises.

The Court of Appeal applied the deferential standard of review for contractual interpretation established in Sattva, finding no error of law or mixed fact and law, and dismissed the appeal.

A commercial landlord sought relief against a tenant regarding the installation of an ATM machine in leased premises used as a fast food restaurant.

The landlord argued the ATM constituted an impermissible use under the lease because it effectively provided banking services and allowed access by non-customers.

The tenant argued the ATM facilitated cash transactions for customers and reduced payment processing costs.

The court held that the ATM did not alter the permitted use of the premises as a fast food restaurant and did not constitute the offering of banking services.

The application was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a trial decision granting the respondent an enhanced supplementary pension based on an additional 36 months of service.

The trial judge found that the parties had a prior oral agreement regarding the pension credit and were mutually mistaken in believing the written letter agreement reflected this intention.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision to rectify the agreement, finding that the appellants' attempt to take advantage of the mistake amounted to unfair dealing.

The Court also agreed that promissory estoppel prevented the appellants from denying the pension entitlement.

The vendor and purchaser of certain businesses disagreed on the method of calculating working capital adjustments under an asset purchase agreement.

An accounting firm, KPMG, was directed to calculate the adjustments according to approaches advocated by both parties.

The purchaser sought leave to appeal an order requiring it to make a payment based on KPMG's calculation, arguing KPMG exceeded its jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal denied leave to appeal, finding that KPMG stayed within its mandate and its determination was final and binding.