Cosmetic and Prestige (AGI)

From Riverview Legal Group
Revision as of 19:14, 30 November 2022 by MKent (talk | contribs) (Created page with "Category:AGI Applications {{Citation: | categories = [AGI Applications] | shortlink = }} ==<i>Homestead Land Holdings Limited v Abdelmalak,</i> 2020 CanLII 117955 (ON...")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)


Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2021 ©
Date Retrieved: 2024-05-21
CLNP Page ID: 2026
Page Categories: [AGI Applications]
Citation: Cosmetic and Prestige (AGI), CLNP 2026, <>, retrieved on 2024-05-21
Editor: MKent
Last Updated: 2022/11/30


Homestead Land Holdings Limited v Abdelmalak, 2020 CanLII 117955 (ON LTB)[1]

17. As I explained at the hearing, the Landlord must lead evidence to establish that each of the capital expenditures claimed meets the definition of “capital expenditure” as set out in s. 18(1) of the regulation. It says:

“capital expenditure” means an expenditure for an extraordinary or significant renovation, repair, replacement or new addition, the expected benefit of which extends for at least five years including,
(a) an expenditure with respect to a leased asset if the lease qualifies as determined under subsection (2), and
(b) an expenditure that the landlord is required to pay on work undertaken by a municipality, local board or public utility, other than work undertaken because of the landlord’s failure to do it,

but does not include,

(c) routine or ordinary work undertaken on a regular basis or undertaken to maintain a capital asset in its operating state, such as cleaning and janitorial services, elevator servicing, general building maintenance, grounds-keeping and appliance repairs, or
(d) work that is substantially cosmetic in nature or is designed to enhance the level of prestige or luxury offered by a unit or residential complex;

References

[1]

  1. 1.0 1.1 Homestead Land Holdings Limited v Abdelmalak, 2020 CanLII 117955 (ON LTB), <https://canlii.ca/t/jgm7r>, retrieved on 2022-11-30