Extreme Toronto Sports Club v. Razor Management Inc.
EXTREME TORONTO SPORTS CLUB
Law Firm / Organization
Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP
RAZOR MANAGEMENT INC.
Law Firm / Organization
Pyne Law Professional Corporation
MATTHEW RAIZENNE
Law Firm / Organization
Pyne Law Professional Corporation
2699677 ONTARIO INC. c.o.b. STADIUM SPORTS LEAGUES
Law Firm / Organization
Pyne Law Professional Corporation

Background:

  • License Agreements: Razor or its predecessor leased sports fields from Toronto schools and sub-licensed them to XTSC for recreational sports leagues.
  • Pandemic Impact: COVID-19 caused facility closures and restricted use, leading to disputes over payment obligations under the license agreements.

Key Issues:

  1. Payment Obligations: XTSC claimed they were not obliged to pay during the pandemic when facilities were unavailable, while Razor insisted payments were due regardless of use.
  2. Termination of Agreements: Razor terminated the agreements due to unpaid arrears; XTSC sued for wrongful termination and related damages.
  3. Counterclaim for Arrears: Razor counterclaimed for unpaid rent.

Court Findings:

  • Summary Judgment: Both parties agreed summary judgment was appropriate for resolving Razor's counterclaim.
  • Contractual Interpretation: The court found the agreements required XTSC to pay for allocated times irrespective of use, with specific exceptions not covering the pandemic-related shutdowns.
  • Termination Validity: Razor's termination was valid due to XTSC’s failure to pay arrears and the absence of a valid contractual defense.
  • Outcome: Razor's motion for summary judgment was granted, awarding them $338,984.20 plus HST. XTSC’s claims against the defendants were dismissed.

Conclusion:

  • Judgment: Razor’s counterclaim for arrears was successful, and XTSC's claim for damages was dismissed.
  • Costs: Parties were encouraged to agree on costs, with provisions for submissions if necessary.

Key Legal Points:

  • Contractual Obligations: Licensees must pay for contracted times unless specifically exempted by the agreement.
  • Force Majeure and Frustration: XTSC did not invoke these doctrines, relying instead on contract interpretation.
  • Summary Judgment Criteria: The court found no genuine issue requiring trial and resolved the matter based on contractual interpretation.
Superior Court of Justice - Ontario
CV-21-00659703-0000
Civil litigation
$ 338,984
Defendant