Facts: The case involved a dispute over two leased lots in a cottage community on Pelican Lake. The defendants contended that the lease for one lot (Parcel A) was forfeited due to assignment without the landlord's consent, and that the lease for the second lot (Lot 26) was terminated as of April 30, 2017.

Issue: The court needed to determine whether the lease for Parcel A was validly assigned without the landlord’s consent and whether the lease for Lot 26 was effectively terminated as claimed by the defendants.

Court’s Ruling: The court found that the lease for Parcel A remained in force and that the lease for Lot 26 did not terminate as alleged by the defendants but expired on April 30, 2018. It was concluded that the landlord had waived the right of re-entry and forfeiture for Parcel A and had not legally terminated the lease for Lot 26.

Costs/Damages Awarded: Each party was ordered to bear its own costs, implying that no specific amount of costs or damages was awarded to either party.