| ICSC Legal Database - Cases | Monday, February 22, 1999 05:07 PM |
| Citation: |
| Allen Greenspoon and Med Clinic 2000 Corporation v. Lilly Tsambalieros, 1998, O.J. No. 2442, No. 7202/94 |
| Issue: |
| The landlord sought damages for (1) wrongful removal of leasehold improvements and damage to the leased |
| premises as a result of the removal of the leasehold improvements, and (2) unpaid rent for the balance of an |
| alleged lease between the parties arising out of renewal of the original term of the lease. Approximately four |
| months before the expiry of the term, the landlord and the tenant met to discuss and, if possible, negotiate for |
| renewal of the lease before its expiry date. The court found that the tenant did not agree to renew the lease at |
| the meeting, but agreed that she would enter into a new written lease, provided that her concerns were |
| incorporated into the new lease. Subsequently, the tenant thought that she had reached an agreement with the |
| landlord whereby she would renew the lease on the terms and conditions raised in their previous meeting, which |
| included the production of a new lease containing all of the terms discussed. The tenant continued to pay rent |
| in accordance with the terms of the lease until its expiry, and thereafter continued in possession of the leased |
| premises and paid what she perceived to be the agreed-upon rent as per their previous discussions. |
| Approximately four months after the expiry of the initial term of the lease, the tenant received a letter from the |
| landlord purporting to set out a breakdown of the rent required to be paid by the tenant, which provided no |
| explanation and was not in accordance with the perceived agreement reached in their discussions. Shortly |
| thereafter, the tenant vacated the premises, removing all of her dental equipment, including all the cabinetry she |
| had purchased from the previous tenant. The court found that the cabinets removed by the tenant were the |
| tenant's or that trade fixtures installed as leasehold improvements and in accordance with the terms of the lease |
| remained the property of the landlord. The court, however, refused to order damages, as it found that the |
| landlord had failed to prove its damages on a balance of probabilities. The court thus held that the landlord (1) |
| was not entitled to damages for improper removal of leasehold improvements in contravention of the provisions of |
| the lease, as the landlord could not prove its damages on the balance of probabilities, and (2) was not entitled |
| to any unpaid rent, as there was no renewal of the lease or a new lease, since the tenant was really on a |
| month-to-month tenancy following the expiration of the term of the lease. |
| Classification 1: |
| Landlord and Tenant |
| 01681 - Legal Update - Winter 1998 |
|
