|
 |
| |
|
  |
October 7-11, 1996 |
 |
 |
Medalist Holdings Ltd. (c.o.b. Harvester Executive Park) vs.
General Electric Capital Equipment Finance Inc. |
|
Between
Medalist Holdings Limited, Louis Weisfeld Limited, Hillholm Holdings Limited, Anita Lomberg and Lola Weisfeld, c.o.b. under the name and style of Harvester Executive Park, plaintiffs, and General Electric Capital Equipment Finance Inc., defendant |
|
[1997] O.J. No. 1995
Court File No. C12802/93 |
|
Ontario Court of Justice (General Division)
Greer J. |
|
Heard: October 7-11, 1996.
Judgment: May 14, 1997.
(39 pp.) |
|
 |
|
Kevin D. Sherkin, for the plaintiffs.
Elaine M. Gray and Heath Whitely, for the defendant. |
|
| Landlord and tenant — Overholding tenants — General — Terms applicable — Tenancy created — Tenancy at will — Yearly tenancy — Action for possession — Occupation rent. |
|
| Action by the plaintiff landlord against the defendant tenant for continued occupation after the expiration of a lease. The plaintiffs owned commercial premises in which the defendant became a tenant through an assignment of an earlier lease between the plaintiffs' predecessor in title and the defendant's assignor. The original lease was for five years and ran until 1991. The issue in this action was whether the defendant was overholding on the lease, or whether the parties had come to a new arrangement or whether the defendant was now a year to year tenant of the premises. Damages were also in issued. The old lease between the parties' predecessors provided that if the parties did not enter into a new written lease, the terms of the overholding clause would take effect, and those terms included a provision that the tenant shall be a monthly tenant at a monthly rental. No new lease was ever entered into by the parties. Under the overholding clause in the old lease the parties had also agreed to a fixed rate of rent as set out in the clause. |
|
| Held, Action allowed. |
|
| When a tenant continued in occupation after the end of the lease, and negotiations for a new lease continued, they may become tenants at will or they may not, depending on circumstances. Overholding did not occur if the tenant continued to occupy the premises under the terms of a new lease or if a month to month tenancy was created. The evidence in this case showed clearly that the defendant was an overholding tenant. Further, although there appeared to be negotiations going on for a new lease, such negotiations were a sham since the defendant did all it could to stall the situation without ever itself committing itself to a new lease. The overholding clause defined the rights and obligations of the parties in the event that the tenant overheld without any agreement with the landlord of a further term. Since the parties never reached any new agreement, their rights were governed by the overholding provision of the old lease. Since the defendant was a yearly tenant under the old lease and it held over at the expiration of that tenancy, and in the absence of sufficient evidence to show that the defendant had become other than a yearly tenant, the defendant became a yearly tenant after the old lease and was subject to give six months notice to quit. |
|
 Download PDF of full case |
|
|
|
|
|
