Relief From Forfeiture (Commercial Tenancy): Difference between revisions
From Riverview Legal Group
Access restrictions were established for this page. If you see this message, you have no access to this page.
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
[56] In light of my finding that the Lease was not lawfully terminated by the landlord, there is no need to grant relief from forfeiture to Second Cup. However, even if the Lease had been lawfully terminated, I would have granted Second Cup relief from forfeiture. The court has the discretion to do so under s. 98 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990 c. c.43 and s. 20 of the Commercial Tenancies Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.7 | [56] In light of my finding that the Lease was not lawfully terminated by the landlord, there is no need to grant relief from forfeiture to Second Cup. However, even if the Lease had been lawfully terminated, I would have granted Second Cup relief from forfeiture. The court has the discretion to do so under s. 98 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990 c. c.43 and s. 20 of the Commercial Tenancies Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.7 | ||
[57] The equities of this case would favour granting relief from forfeiture. In <b><i>Jungle Lion Management Inc. v. London Life Insurance Company, 2019 ONSC 780</b></i><ref="Jungle"/>, at para. 34, this court considered the following three criteria: | [57] The equities of this case would favour granting relief from forfeiture. In <b><i>Jungle Lion Management Inc. v. London Life Insurance Company, 2019 ONSC 780</b></i><ref name="Jungle"/>, at para. 34, this court considered the following three criteria: | ||
::(a) the conduct of the applicant and gravity of the breaches; | ::(a) the conduct of the applicant and gravity of the breaches; | ||
::(b) whether the object of the right of forfeiture in the lease was essentially to secure the payment of money; and | ::(b) whether the object of the right of forfeiture in the lease was essentially to secure the payment of money; and | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
<ref name="Second Cup">The Second Cup Ltd. v. 2410077 Ontario Ltd., 2020 ONSC 3684 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/j89tr>, retrieved on 2020-06-25</ref> | <ref name="Second Cup">The Second Cup Ltd. v. 2410077 Ontario Ltd., 2020 ONSC 3684 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/j89tr>, retrieved on 2020-06-25</ref> | ||
<ref="Jungle"> Lion Management Inc. v. London Life Insurance Company, 2019 ONSC 780 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/hx9pl>, retrieved on 2020-06-25</ref> | <ref name="Jungle"> Lion Management Inc. v. London Life Insurance Company, 2019 ONSC 780 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/hx9pl>, retrieved on 2020-06-25</ref> | ||
==References== | ==References== | ||
Revision as of 01:58, 26 June 2020
The Second Cup Ltd. v. 2410077 Ontario Ltd., 2020 ONSC 3684 (CanLII)[1]
[56] In light of my finding that the Lease was not lawfully terminated by the landlord, there is no need to grant relief from forfeiture to Second Cup. However, even if the Lease had been lawfully terminated, I would have granted Second Cup relief from forfeiture. The court has the discretion to do so under s. 98 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990 c. c.43 and s. 20 of the Commercial Tenancies Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.7
[57] The equities of this case would favour granting relief from forfeiture. In Jungle Lion Management Inc. v. London Life Insurance Company, 2019 ONSC 780[2], at para. 34, this court considered the following three criteria:
- (a) the conduct of the applicant and gravity of the breaches;
- (b) whether the object of the right of forfeiture in the lease was essentially to secure the payment of money; and
- (c) the disparity or disproportion between the value of the property forfeited and the damage caused by the breach.
References
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 The Second Cup Ltd. v. 2410077 Ontario Ltd., 2020 ONSC 3684 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/j89tr>, retrieved on 2020-06-25
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 Lion Management Inc. v. London Life Insurance Company, 2019 ONSC 780 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/hx9pl>, retrieved on 2020-06-25
