2155091 Ontario Limited v. 379014 Ontario Limited
The trial judge’s finding that the work constituted renovations/leasehold improvements (and the tenant’s failure to comply with the lease approval requirements) was a permissible factual and legal conclusion on the application of the lease terms; accordingly the costs are the tenant’s responsibility and the appeal...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2012 ONCA 446
- Parties
- Applicant/appellant: 2155091 Ontario Limited c.o.b. Rockford’s Bar & Grill; Respondent: 379014 Ontario Limited; Respondent: Vincent Forgione
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 25 June 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Collection / Appeal (court of Appeal for Ontario)
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Leasehold Improvements, Repairs, Commercial Lease Interpretation, Costs
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
2155091 Ontario Limited c.o.b. Rockford’s Bar & Grill
Applicant/appellant
379014 Ontario Limited
Respondent
Vincent Forgione
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Collection / Appeal (court of Appeal for Ontario)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the work performed by the tenant constituted leasehold improvements under clause 11 or repairs under clause 18 of the lease
- 2 If classified as repairs, whether the repairs were structural and therefore the landlord’s responsibility
- 3 Whether the tenant complied with clause 11 obligations to obtain landlord approval
Ratio Decidendi
The trial judge’s finding that the work constituted renovations/leasehold improvements (and the tenant’s failure to comply with the lease approval requirements) was a permissible factual and legal conclusion on the application of the lease terms; accordingly the costs are the tenant’s responsibility and the appeal is dismissed.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
- Costs to the respondents fixed in the amount of $10,000 inclusive of H.S.T. and disbursements
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
2155091 Ontario Limited v. 379014 Ontario Limited Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2012-06-25 Neutral citation 2012 ONCA 446 Docket numbers C53206 Judges O’Connor, Dennis; Rosenberg, Marc; Simmons, Janet M. Subject Civil Decision Content COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: 2155091 Ontario Limited v. 379014 Ontario Limited, 2012 ONCA 446 DATE: 20120625 DOCKET: C53206 O’Connor A.C.J.O., Rosenberg and Simmons JJ.A. BETWEEN 2155091 Ontario Limited c.o.b. Rockford’s Bar & Grill Applicant (Appellant) and 379014 Ontario Limited and Vincent Forgione Respondents Riaz S. Ahmed, for the Appellant Lori Marzinotto, for the Respondents Heard and released orally: June 19, 2012 On appeal from the judgment of Justice Anne Mullins of the Superior Court of Justice, dated December 17, 2010. ENDORSEMENT [1] The principle issue on this appeal is whether the work performed by the tenant fell within clause 11 of the lease as leasehold improvements or clause 18 as repairs. If the former, the costs were to be borne by the tenant. If the latter, and if the repairs were structural, then the costs were to be borne by the landlord. [2] It is apparent from paragraph 41 of the reasons that the trial judge found that the work done was for leasehold improvements. This is a finding that was open to her given that the premises were taken on an “as is” basis and some of the work was done well before the “as is” lease was signed. We also note that the tenant carried out the work without complying with its obligations in clause 11 to obtain the approval of the landlord. [3] The reasons were sufficient given the issueS raised, which turned simply on the application of the wording of terms commonly found in commercial leases. The finding by the trial judge that the work done was “renovations” was determinative of that issue. [4] As to the patio, the formal order does not deal with this issue and accordingly this matter may be pursued as part of the trial of the issue or otherwise as the appellants may be advised. [5] Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. [6] Costs to the respondent are fixed in the amount of $10,000, inclusive of H.S.T. and disbursements. Signed: “D. O’Conor A.C.J.O.” “M. Rosenberg J.A.” “Janet Simmons J.A.”