Kakoz v. Younan, (1998) 57 O.T.C. 37 (GD)

• Judge: Zalev, J.
• Court: Ontario Court of Justice General Division (Canada)
• Case Date: March 06, 1998
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1998), 57 O.T.C. 37 (GD)

Kakoz v. Younan (1998), 57 O.T.C. 37 (GD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1998] O.T.C. TBEd. AP.014

Steve Kakoz (applicant/respondent by counter-application) v. George Younan (respondent/applicant by counter-application)

(Court File No. 97-GD-42119)

Indexed As: Kakoz v. Younan

Ontario Court of Justice

General Division

Windsor

Zalev, J.

March 6, 1998.

Summary:

In November 1992, the tenant and landlord entered into a five year lease. The lease contained an option to renew the lease. The lease required that notice of the renewal be made in writing six months prior to the expiration of the lease. The tenant missed the deadline for properly exercising the option. After the deadline the tenant sought to renew the lease. The landlord's solicitor took the position that the option to renew was not properly exercised, but on September 15, 1997, offered to enter into a new lease with different terms. The tenant indicated to the landlord that he did not agree to the terms. However, the tenant subsequently indicated that he would accept the terms of the new lease. The landlord claimed that the lease ended and requested that the tenant vacate the premises. The tenant applied for a declaration that the lease had been renewed. The landlord applied for, inter alia, a declaration that the lease had expired and an order for possession.

The Ontario Court (General Division) held that the tenant failed to properly exercise the option to renew. Therefore, the 1992 lease had expired. However, the court held that the September 15, 1997 offer remained open and a new lease was formed on the basis of that offer.

Landlord and Tenant - Topic 15

Creation of relationship - Essential elements - Offer and acceptance - See paragraphs 1 to 25.

Landlord and Tenant - Topic 2391

The lease - Renewals - Option to renew - What constitutes exercise of - See paragraphs 1 to 25.

Cases Noticed:

Petridis v. Shabinsky (1982), 132 D.L.R.(3d) 430 (Ont. H.C.), dist. [para. 15].

Mbozos v. Hios (1982), 36 O.R.(2d) 627 (H.C.), dist. [para. 15].

Affiliated Realty Corp. v. Berger (Sam) Restaurant Ltd. (1973), 2 O.R.(2d) 147 (H.C.), refd. to [para. 22].

Counsel:

Michael R. Murphy, for the applicant;

Samuel A. Mossman, for the respondent.

This application was heard by Zalev, J., of the Ontario Court (General Division), who delivered the following decision on March 6, 1998.