Wolfgang Siegfried Kaufmann

A commercial condominium corporation sought a compliance order against a grocery store tenant and its landlord to prevent the display of merchandise on the common element sidewalk.

The application judge granted the compliance order, dismissed the landlord's oppression application, and awarded costs to the condominium corporation.

The landlord and tenant appealed the compliance order, and the condominium corporation cross-appealed the costs award.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the main appeal, finding the limitation period had not expired due to continuous breaches, and upheld the dismissal of the oppression application.

However, the Court allowed the cross-appeal on costs, finding the application judge erred in principle by failing to explain her calculation of 'additional actual costs' under s. 134(5) of the Condominium Act, 1998, and remitted the costs issue for reconsideration.

The appellant appealed a decision regarding the apportionment of taxes under a commercial lease.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's conclusion that there was a separate apportionment as contemplated by the lease and that the appellant had elected to recoup taxes on that basis and could not resile from that election.

The appeal was dismissed.

The plaintiff landlord appealed the dismissal of its action for damages for breach of a commercial lease.

The subtenant vacated the premises before the end of the sublease term, but rent was fully paid at the time.

The landlord immediately changed the locks and issued a notice of repudiation before the next rent payment was due.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the landlord fundamentally breached the lease by acting before any default occurred, entitling the tenant to treat the lease as at an end.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a decision declaring that their commercial lease expired and ordering vacant possession.

The appellants argued that they had entered into a binding conditional contract for the extension or renewal of the lease and that the landlords were estoppel from adducing evidence to the contrary.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the record amply supported the application judge's conclusion that the parties were merely engaged in negotiations and had not concluded an enforceable agreement to renew or extend the lease.

The landlord of a retail shopping mall redesigned the development without notifying the franchisor or the franchisee, who had relied on the original site plan attached to their leases.

The franchisee suffered business losses due to the redesign and construction.

The trial judge found the landlord liable for negligent misrepresentation and the franchisor liable for innocent misrepresentation and breach of the duty of good faith, awarding the franchisee $400,000 in damages.

The Court of Appeal upheld the liability and damages findings, concluding that the site plan constituted a representation of the mall's layout.

However, the Court allowed the landlord's appeal regarding the franchisor's claim for contribution and indemnity, finding the franchisor was estopped by its contradictory litigation conduct.

The appellant landlord appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent tenant damages for rent paid and the return of a mistaken payment.

The tenant had agreed to terminate its commercial lease early but continued paying rent until the termination date.

Before that date, the landlord leased the premises to a new tenant.

The trial judge found this constituted an eviction, entitling the tenant to the return of rent paid for the overlapping period.

The trial judge also ordered the return of a mistaken payment, rejecting the landlord's claim for set-off as the alleged tax liabilities had not crystallized.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the trial judge on both issues and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant landlord appealed a decision interpreting a Lease Extension and Amending Agreement.

The application judge held that the agreement extended a restrictive covenant in favour of the tenant for the full term of the agreement.

The Court of Appeal found no error, noting that the agreement confirmed the restrictive covenant remained unchanged except as modified, and the only relevant modification was the definition of the term, extending it to 16 years and 7 months.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.