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.
