The property owner allegedly excluded the tenant from the application for financial relief
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has ordered a landlord in a commercial lease dispute to provide key documents and answer questions about unpaid rent and pandemic-related rent assistance, emphasizing transparency in summary judgment motions.
The case involved a property leased to a tenant whose operations were severely impacted by COVID-19 restrictions, reducing their workforce to 20 percent. The tenant sought rent relief in April 2020, but the landlord delayed its decision to participate in the Canada Emergency Commercial Rent Assistance (CECRA) program. The landlord requested documentation for the application, but the tenant claimed the landlord failed to inform it of deadlines or requirements properly. Consequently, the landlord excluded the tenant from the application, and the tenant did not receive rent relief.
The tenant alleged that the landlord acted in bad faith, failing to negotiate rent adjustments and excluding the tenant from the CECRA application to secure a higher-paying tenant. The landlord disputed this, asserting that it had complied with all legal obligations and claimed over $2.8 million in unpaid rent.
The relationship further deteriorated when the landlord locked the tenant out of the premises in late 2020. The tenant argued that this action violated Ontario’s Protecting Small Business Act, which restricts evictions for tenants eligible for rent assistance programs. The landlord denied that the eviction breached the legislation, maintaining that the tenant failed to meet its obligations.
The tenant brought a motion to compel the landlord’s representative to answer questions about the CECRA application and the legality of the eviction. The Superior Court ruled that these questions relate to the tenant’s claims of bad faith and require a response. It further ordered the production of the CECRA application, emphasizing its significance to the dispute. The court allowed the landlord to redact confidential information unrelated to the tenant while requiring transparency on key details.
The court underscored that questions in cross-examination must address issues directly linked to the motion, including credibility and factual disputes. It rejected the landlord’s solicitor-client privilege claims, noting insufficient evidence to support this argument. The court ordered the landlord to provide answers and the requested documents within 30 days.
