Notice Requirements - Re: Commercial Tenancy

From Riverview Legal Group


Martin v. Mailhot, 2020 ONCA 480 (CanLII)[1]

[10] The purpose of the notice requirement in s. 19(2) is “to warn the tenant that its leasehold interest is at risk and to give the tenant an opportunity to preserve that interest by remedying the breaches complained of and, where necessary, by compensating the landlord”: 780046 Ontario Inc. v. Columbus Medical Arts Building Inc. (1994), 1994 CanLII 1188 (ON CA), 20 O.R. (3d) 457 (C.A.)[2], at p. 464. Courts have insisted on strict compliance with this requirement: Columbus, at p. 464; Jay-Pee Drycleaners Inc. v. 2321324 Ontario Inc., 2017 ONCA 798, at para. 19.[3]

[11] The issue in this appeal is the precise nature of the requirement for “compensation in money” as outlined in s. 19(2).

[12] This issue was addressed by this court in Chick ‘N Treats Inc. v. Woodside Square Ltd. (1990), 38 O.A.C. 138 (C.A.). In that case, the tenant breached the lease by failing to maintain accurate monthly statements of gross revenue and make them available to the landlord. On appeal, the tenant argued that the landlord’s notice of breach was invalid as it had not included a demand for monetary compensation. The court rejected this argument at paras. 6 to 8 of its reasons:

In our opinion, the additional requirement that the lessee make compensation for the breach cannot be mandatory, because the resulting obligation on the lessee to make reasonable compensation to the satisfaction of the lessor would be nonsense in situations, such as this in the case on appeal, where the breach is not quantifiable. We believe that it is a requirement of the notice if the landlord requires compensation in addition to remedying the breach, but it is one that can be waived.
It appears to us that in a situation where the breach is capable of remedy and the landlord has suffered damage which is compensable [in] money, then the landlord must assert both remedies in his notice if he intends to insist on satisfaction with respect to both, failing which, he will exercise his right of re-entry or forfeiture. [Emphasis added.]


[1] [2] [3]

References

  1. 1.0 1.1 Martin v. Mailhot, 2020 ONCA 480 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/j8v1p>, retrieved on 2020-07-28
  2. 2.0 2.1 80046 Ontario Inc. v. Columbus Medical Arts Building Inc., 1994 CanLII 1188 (ON CA), <http://canlii.ca/t/6k5k>, retrieved on 2020-07-28
  3. 3.0 3.1 Jay-Pee Drycleaners Inc. v. 2321324 Ontario Inc., 2017 ONCA 798 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/h6p50>, retrieved on 2020-07-28