1173253 Ontario Ltd. v. Ordanis, (1997) 49 O.T.C. 235 (GD)

• Judge: Stong, J.
• Court: Ontario Court of Justice General Division (Canada)
• Case Date: December 11, 1997
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1997), 49 O.T.C. 235 (GD)

1173253 Ont. Ltd. v. Ordanis (1997), 49 O.T.C. 235 (GD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1997] O.T.C. TBEd. DE.176

1173253 Ontario Ltd. (plaintiff) v. Jerry Ordanis (defendant)

(File No. 88082/97)

Indexed As: 1173253 Ontario Ltd. v. Ordanis

Ontario Court of Justice

General Division

Stong, J.

December 12, 1997.

Summary:

On November 17, 1997, the plaintiff entered into a lease of premises from the defendant for a five year term to commence on December 1, 1997. The intended use was for adult lingerie, novelties and videos. On November 19, 1997, the plaintiff was advised that the defendant would not honour the lease and that the locks were being changed. The defendant claimed that the intended use of the premises was not discussed with him and that he did not read the changes to the contract which indicated the intended use. The plaintiff applied for an order requiring the defendant to deliver possession of the premises and an order restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's possession of those premises.

The Ontario Court (General Division) dismissed the plaintiff's application for interlocutory relief. The balance of convenience was in the defendant's favour. Greater harm would be caused to the defendant's existing business than to the plaintiff, whose relative loss of profit was totally untried or tested in that location.

Injunctions - Topic 1606

Interlocutory or interim injunctions - Balance of convenience - See paragraphs 11 to 13.

Injunctions - Topic 1610

Interlocutory or interim injunctions - Circumstances when injunction will not be granted - See paragraphs 1 to 14.

Injunctions - Topic 2309

Mandatory injunctions - Interim or interlocutory mandatory injunctions - See paragraphs 1 to 14.

Landlord and Tenant - Topic 2421

The lease - Repudiation - General - See paragraphs 1 to 14.

Counsel:

H. Andrew Halpenny, for the plaintiff;

Geoff R. Hall, for the defendant.

This matter was heard on December 11, 1997, before Stong, J., of the Ontario Court (General Division), who released the following judgment on December 12, 1997.