corona icon We continue to serve new and existing clients and meet by way of telephone, email or video conference. COVID-19 Update. Click Here Close Icon

corona icon COVID-19 Update. Click Here Close Icon

Blog

A commercial building
Oct 1 2020 | Zayouna Admin

Rezoning / Change In Use For Commercial Property: Post-Covid Implications For Landlords And Tenants

Sam (Samir) Gebrael and Syed Jawad Quader

Commercial Litigation Division, Zayouna Law Firm


Introduction

COVID-19 has had and will continue to have a massive impact on commercial tenancies in Ontario. On the retail side, a large number of small businesses are closing and those that remain open are downsizing for lack of revenue. For office space, the work-from-home culture has meant a significant drop in demand.

In fact, the Toronto Regional Real Estate Board (TRREB) reports that while lease rate increased by 16%, leasing activity fell by 37% and sales fell by a whopping 61.2% in Q2 2020 when compared to Q1 2019[1]. It’s fair to say that commercial landlords are scrambling to keep their good tenants. To hedge losses, some landlords are trying to bring in alternative types of tenants, and others are going for a complete change of use.

In many cases, the resulting rezoning plans will have a major impact on the remaining tenants and their businesses. Which begs the question: was this what the parties bargained for when they signed the lease?

This article touches upon 4 important legal considerations that the landlords and tenants will have to keep in mind as many landlords are forced to rethink their properties.

1. Always Start with the Lease:

Traditionally, the high demand that existed for commercial spaces before COVID gave commercial owners an upper hand in negotiating contracts. We are seeing a shift in that dynamic post-COVID. More and more owners are now willing to make concessions on standard lease terms to woo tenants into empty spaces. Be that as it may, the starting point to analyse the rights of the parties will always be the lease contract.

One example of the things to look out for would be to consider whether the lease has a “demolition” or “redevelopment” clause. Depending on how they are drafted, “redevelopment clauses” give landlords the power to terminate the lease when there are plans to redevelop or rezone the leased building. On the other hand, landlords are precluded from terminating leases for anything other than demolishing the building when there are standard “demolition clauses” in the lease contract. Subtle variations in the layout and articulation of the clauses can significantly affect the parties’ rights in such a situation.

2. Will Rezoning Breach the Tenant’s Right of Quiet Enjoyment?

What if the Landlord decides to demolish half of the mall to build high rises which will take years to complete, will the construction next door amount to a breach of quiet enjoyment? The answer will vary from case to case.

Leases normally include a “quiet enjoyment” clause that entitles the tenant the right to quietly possess and enjoy the leased property free from disturbance from the lessor. Even if the lease contains no such clause, Section 23(1)(1)(ii) of Ontario’s Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, R.S.O. 1990 automatically implies a “quiet enjoyment” covenant into every lease contract without any “trouble, denial, eviction, interruption, claim or demand”[2] from the lessor. Not every disturbance will qualify as a breach. To establish breach of the tenant’s right of quiet enjoyment, the tenant must show that the lessor’s interference is physical or direct[3], “substantial”[4], “serious” or of “grave and permanent nature”[5]. In 1039198 Ontario Inc. v Ash Pharmacies Inc. [1998] OJ No 4397, the Ontario Court of Justice felt that the vacancies created by the landlord’s unnecessary renovations to the leased building and the bad publicity generated by the landlords actions was not “substantial” enough to warrant a finding of a breach. In contrast, the court found breach when the noise, dust and disruption emanating from a major construction project undertaken by the landlord disrupted a tenant’s business in Bloor Street Diner Ltd v Manufacturers Life Insurance Co, [2016] OJ No 1588.

3. Will Rezoning Amount to Derogation from Grant?

Where rezoning alters the nature and character of the leased premises, the tenant may in suitable cases legitimately argue that the landlord has taken back, or derogated, its grant of the lease. To prove that the lessor has derogated from his grant, the tenant must demonstrate that some act by the lessor has rendered the premises substantially less fit for the purposes for which they were let.[6] In other words, is the tenant detrimentally affected in using the premises to sell its products or do its business?. The general principle is that a lessor’s grant is construed strictly against him[7] and that he retains no rights over the leased premises except by reservation in the lease in clear terms[8]. Commercial owners must be careful before rezoning a commercial space if it will likely to change the nature and character of the leased premises in a manner that renders it unfit for its original anticipated use.

4. Oral Representations

A final consideration is the discussions had between the landlord and tenants before the lease was signed. While verbal communication is not given much weight, in today’s age, it’s possible that certain representations were made by email. What did the Landlord promise to do / not do in the next 5 to 10 years? Is that promise covered by the “four corners” clause of the contract, or will it fall outside of the contract because of the principal of “collateral contract”? A detrimental reliance by the tenant on a pre-contractual promise made may make the landlord liable, and vice versa.

Conclusion:

An ill thought out rezoning plan can cause significant harm to both the tenant’s and landlord’s businesses and can easily result in costly litigation. Some courts have even imposed an injunction on the lessor where a tenant alleges wrongful interference with its right of quiet enjoyment[9] or where the lessor’s renovation plans negatively and substantially impact the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises[10]. The litigation may also result in significant claims in arrear rents, contractual rents, termination of lease and damages for business loss and breach as well.

These risks make it worthwhile for a landlord to invest in a thoroughly and professionally considered rezoning / change in use plan, and for tenants to seek advice before it is too late.

If you are a landlord starting to rethink the use of your property, or if you are a tenant in a plaza that is undergoing major changes, please don’t hesitate to contact us.

Sam Gebrael

Sam (Samir) Gebrael*
Head of the Commercial Litigation and Real Estate Division
Licensed in ON & NY
Zayouna Law Firm*
sgebrael@zaylaw.com
647 283 8125
*Prof. Corporation

This information is provided for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal or professional advice. No reader should rely on this information or any part thereof without obtaining legal or professional advice specific to their situation.

[1] HTTP://TRREB.CA/FILES/MARKET-STATS/COMMERCIAL-REPORTS/CW20Q2.PDF
[2] SHORT FORMS CONVEYANCES ACT, CHAPTER 472 OF THE REVISED STATUTES OF ONTARIO, 1980, SCHEDULE B, ITEM 3
[3] GREENBRANCH INVESTMENTS LTD V GOULBORN, [1972] OJ NO 956 AT PARA. 6; PELLATT V MONARCH INVESTMENTS LTD, [1981] OJ NO 2258 AT PARAS 26, 27 AND 28
[4] FIRTH V BD MANAGEMENT LTD, [1990] BCJ NO 2035, FOLLOWED IN TORGAN ENTERPRISES LTD V CONTACT ARTS MANAGEMENT INC, [1997] OJ NO 2759
[5] 1039198 ONTARIO INC V ASH PHARMACIES INC, [1998] OJ NO 4397 AT PARA 15; AFFIRMED BY ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL IN 1039198 ONTARIO INC V ASH PHARMACIES INC, [2000] OJ NO 2523
[6] FIRTH V BD MANAGEMENT LTD, [1990] BCJ NO 2035
[7] ZAWALY V YOCHIM, [1988] OJ NO 2934 AT PARA 7
[8] COUNTRY STYLE FOOD SERVICES INC V 1304271 ONTARIO LTD, [2003] OJ NO 362 AT PARA 44
[9] BLOOR STREET DINER LTD V MANUFACTURERS LIFE INSURANCE CO, [2016] OJ NO 1588, SPECIFICALLY PARA 66; EVERGREEN BUILDING LTD V IBI LEASEHOLDS LTD, [2005] BCJ NO 1776
[10] BLOOR STREET DINER LTD V MANUFACTURERS LIFE INSURANCE CO, [2016] OJ NO 1588

Leave A Reply

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *