Re-Entry by Landlord (CTA): Difference between revisions
(Created page with "Category:Eviction (Commercial Tenancy) ==Mason Homes Limited v. Woodford, 2014 ONCA 816 (CanLII)<ref name="Woodford"/>== [16] A proper analysis of ss. 18 and 19 of the A...") |
|||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
==Mason Homes Limited v. Woodford, 2014 ONCA 816 (CanLII)<ref name="Woodford"/>== | ==Mason Homes Limited v. Woodford, 2014 ONCA 816 (CanLII)<ref name="Woodford"/>== | ||
[16] A proper analysis of ss. 18 and 19 of the Act would necessitate consideration not only of the timing of the re-entry, but also of whether the premises were abandoned when the re-entry occurred. When premises have been abandoned, immediate re-entry by a landlord does not prejudice its ability to claim for the rent outstanding: Commercial Credit Corp. v. Harry D. Shields Ltd. (1980), 1980 CanLII 1617 (ON SC), 29 O.R. (2d) 106, at paras. 16-20 (H. Ct. J.); 615314 Ontario Ltd. v. 396380 Ontario Inc., [1995] O.J. No. 1518 (Ont. Ct. J. Gen. Div.). | [16] A proper analysis of ss. 18 and 19 of the Act would necessitate consideration not only of the timing of the re-entry, but also of whether the premises were abandoned when the re-entry occurred. When premises have been abandoned, immediate re-entry by a landlord does not prejudice its ability to claim for the rent outstanding: <i>Commercial Credit Corp. v. Harry D. Shields Ltd. (1980), 1980 CanLII 1617 (ON SC), 29 O.R. (2d) 106, at paras. 16-20 (H. Ct. J.)</i><ref name="Harry"/>; 615314 Ontario Ltd. v. 396380 Ontario Inc., [1995] O.J. No. 1518 (Ont. Ct. J. Gen. Div.). | ||
[17] There was no evidence on the issue of abandonment adduced at trial because the Act was not pleaded and the respondents had, in any event, admitted that re-entry occurred on January 20, 2005. The trial judge did not, therefore, have a proper evidentiary foundation to conduct his analysis of the application of the Act. Instead, he equated a changing of the locks with a re-entry resulting in forfeiture of right to sue for the balance of the rent due and failed to conduct a meaningful analysis of the issue of abandonment. | [17] There was no evidence on the issue of abandonment adduced at trial because the Act was not pleaded and the respondents had, in any event, admitted that re-entry occurred on January 20, 2005. The trial judge did not, therefore, have a proper evidentiary foundation to conduct his analysis of the application of the Act. Instead, he equated a changing of the locks with a re-entry resulting in forfeiture of right to sue for the balance of the rent due and failed to conduct a meaningful analysis of the issue of abandonment. | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
<ref name="Woodford">Mason Homes Limited v. Woodford, 2014 ONCA 816 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/gfbv5>, retrieved on 2020-11-03</ref> | <ref name="Woodford">Mason Homes Limited v. Woodford, 2014 ONCA 816 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/gfbv5>, retrieved on 2020-11-03</ref> | ||
<ref name="Harry">Commercial Credit Corp. Ltd. v. Harry D. Shields Ltd. et al., 1980 CanLII 1617 (ON SC), <http://canlii.ca/t/g1hlt>, retrieved on 2020-11-03</ref> | |||
==References== | ==References== | ||
Revision as of 18:12, 3 November 2020
Mason Homes Limited v. Woodford, 2014 ONCA 816 (CanLII)[1]
[16] A proper analysis of ss. 18 and 19 of the Act would necessitate consideration not only of the timing of the re-entry, but also of whether the premises were abandoned when the re-entry occurred. When premises have been abandoned, immediate re-entry by a landlord does not prejudice its ability to claim for the rent outstanding: Commercial Credit Corp. v. Harry D. Shields Ltd. (1980), 1980 CanLII 1617 (ON SC), 29 O.R. (2d) 106, at paras. 16-20 (H. Ct. J.)[2]; 615314 Ontario Ltd. v. 396380 Ontario Inc., [1995] O.J. No. 1518 (Ont. Ct. J. Gen. Div.).
[17] There was no evidence on the issue of abandonment adduced at trial because the Act was not pleaded and the respondents had, in any event, admitted that re-entry occurred on January 20, 2005. The trial judge did not, therefore, have a proper evidentiary foundation to conduct his analysis of the application of the Act. Instead, he equated a changing of the locks with a re-entry resulting in forfeiture of right to sue for the balance of the rent due and failed to conduct a meaningful analysis of the issue of abandonment.
References
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 Mason Homes Limited v. Woodford, 2014 ONCA 816 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/gfbv5>, retrieved on 2020-11-03
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 Commercial Credit Corp. Ltd. v. Harry D. Shields Ltd. et al., 1980 CanLII 1617 (ON SC), <http://canlii.ca/t/g1hlt>, retrieved on 2020-11-03
