The Court dismissed a confidentiality claim but found Hanch Enterprises unreasonably withheld consent to an assignment. Simply Ballet received nominal damages of $1,000.
The court held that clause 2.3 of the lease transferred ownership of listed chattels to the tenant, found the landlord breached by refusing a bill of sale, and awarded damages of $106,295.
Appeal dismissed from an interim injunction in a franchise dispute. The Court upheld findings of a strong prima facie case, irreparable harm, and balance of convenience.
Because respondent did not consent to any assignment and refused to contract with appellant, appellant had no possessory or proprietary interest and therefore could not establish the required proximity or duty of care for a claim of pure economic loss; accordingly the claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was properly struck and refusal to permit further amendment was within the motion judge's discretion.
Source excerpt
Strike for disclosing no reasonable cause of action
The British Columbia Court of Appeal ordered a new trial after finding the judge failed to consider whether special circumstances allowed a trust beneficiary to sue a tenant for rent arrears.
The assignment was ineffective against the landlord because the express condition precedent of landlord consent was not fulfilled and 244 could not assign while in default; however surrender of the head lease did not terminate Smiles First's sublease, so the landlord's termination notice was ineffective and Smiles First is entitled to possession under the Sublease until its term ends.
The court held there was no valid assignment of the lease and no valid renewal notice by all required parties, so the lease expired and a writ of possession issued.
The Model Assignment of Lease Consent Agreement created a contractual pathway by which the lender, upon receiving notice of tenant default or taking possession of the mobile home, becomes liable for the tenant's covenants including payment of rent until the home is sold, removed or the lender releases its security; on the facts the bank was notified and took possession and is therefore liable for arrears and must provide vacant possession by the ordered date.
The Residential Tenancies Act did not apply to the Bank because the Act governs a relationship between a person and an individual and the Bank was neither the individual tenant nor an assignee or legal representative of the tenant; the Model Assignment agreement did not effect an assignment of the site lease and the Bank's payment of rent alone, without possession or assignment, did not create a deemed tenancy, so the Director lacked jurisdiction and the appeal is allowed.