Daoust Vukovich LLP. 20 Queen Street West, Suite 3000, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5H 3R3 T 416 597 6888T 416-597-6888 F 416 597 8897
In this installment, Maneet Sadhra "spills the tea" on non-disturbance agreements.
This publication is a general discussion of certain legal and related developments and should not be relie...
When a lease requires a landlord to respond to a request for consent to a transfer within a specific period, failure to do so may result in the landlord being deemed to have unreasonably withheld its consent.
In a recent Ontario case, the landlord had the right to allocate realty taxes among premises of the property in its “sole and unfettered discretion”. The Court analyzed the scope of the Landlord’s allocation authority against the organizing principle of “good faith” in contractual performance.
Landlords and tenants should approach removal and restoration obligations carefully. These obligations often seem clear at the conclusion of negotiations, but become ripe for dispute as the tenancy approaches the end of its term.
A properly drafted indemnity agreement can be a powerful tool in a landlord’s arsenal. All the more so since a recent Ontario court decision held that a landlord had no duty to mitigate its claim against an indemnifier under an indemnity agreement.
In a recent Ontario Superior Court of Justice decision, the Court was tasked with determining whether certain costs related to an open-air atrium, a rent free fixturing period, and leasing commissions were all “reasonable” expenses in connection with a sublease transaction.
The Ontario Superior Court followed ample previous authority to hold that force majeure clauses cannot be used to avoid paying rent unless the terms of the clause expressly say so.
Now, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruling has muddied the waters.
In a recent Ontario Court of Appeal (the “ONCA”) decision, Tabriz Persian Cuisine v. Highrise Property Group Inc., a landlord's refusal to consider consenting to an assignment until the tenant had satisfied certain conditions was front-and-center.
In this News ReLease, we are concerned with the assumption that “substantial completion” is a well-defined term of certain meaning. Unfortunately, that’s not the case.
As of October 6, 2022, merchants everywhere in Canada (except for Quebec) are allowed to pass their Visa and MasterCard interchange fees on to their customers, up to a maximum of 2.4%. This has implications for “gross revenue” for percentage rent purposes.
In the recent, long-awaited decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Hudson’s Bay Company ULC v. Oxford Properties, the Court confirmed that the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic does not justify expanding the scope of section 20 of the Commercial Tenancies Act (Ontario).
All content ©Copyright 2021 Daoust Vukovich LLP. All rights reserved. Law firm marketing | Cubicle Fugitive