Arctic Home Services Inc. v. Canadian Home Improvement Creditor Corporation
Arctic Home Services Inc.
Law Firm / Organization
Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP
Jason Malhi
Law Firm / Organization
Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP
Canadian Home Improvement Creditor Corporation
Law Firm / Organization
Miller Thomson LLP
Lawyer(s)

John Philpott

Key Points:

 

  • Background:

    • Arctic Home Services Inc. rents and services water heaters and air conditioning systems.
    • An agreement was signed on June 28, 2018, where CHICC agreed to purchase the lease contracts from Arctic for $1.7 million, covering payments for 10 years.
    • Dispute arose over entitlement to buyout payments when customers exercised their right to end leases early.
  • Legal Issue:

    • The core question was whether Arctic or CHICC was entitled to the money paid by homeowners for early buyouts of lease agreements.
  • Decision:

    • The court ruled that the agreement granted CHICC the income from early buyouts.
    • The court dismissed Arctic's application, citing the agreement's definitions and terms.
  • Contract Interpretation Principles:

    • The intent of the parties and the scope of their understanding must be determined by reading the contract as a whole.
    • The agreement's words should be given their ordinary and grammatical meaning within the context known to the parties at the time of formation.
    • An entire agreement clause in the contract excludes consideration of prior negotiations or agreements.
  • Key Contractual Provisions:

    • Assigned Payments: Includes all payments during the lease term, such as regularly scheduled payments, optional prepayments, and early buyouts.
    • Other Receivables: Encompasses all customer payments under the lease, including early buyout income.
  • Court's Findings:

    • The agreement clearly indicated that CHICC was entitled to the proceeds from early buyouts.
    • The court rejected Arctic's argument that it should retain a portion of these payments.
    • The terms of the agreement were explicit and did not support Arctic's claims.
    • No specific amounts for costs were determined in the ruling; these would be considered in the subsequent costs submissions.
Superior Court of Justice - Ontario
CV-22-00689979-0000
Corporate & commercial law
Respondent