Grove v Arctic Colour Tours Inc
ARCTIC COLOUR TOURS INC.
Law Firm / Organization
Dentons Canada LLP
Lawyer(s)

Morgan Burris

WAYNE GROVE
Law Firm / Organization
Lamarche, Lang & Barrett
Lawyer(s)

Meagan C. Lang

  • Parties Involved:

    • Wayne Grove (Petitioner): Landowner who leased property to Arctic Colour.
    • Arctic Colour Tours Inc. (Respondent): A tourism operator using the leased land for accommodations and northern lights tours.
  • Background:

    • Initial leases between Grove and Arctic Colour date back to 2016, with multiple renewals and modifications over the years.
    • Arctic Colour invested in developing the property, constructing buildings for its operations but repeatedly breached lease terms by failing to perform necessary maintenance and repairs.
  • 2022 Lease:

    • The 2022 Lease included a one-year initial term with an option for five one-year renewals, potentially ending in 2028. Arctic Colour did not meet lease conditions for renewal, resulting in the lease ending on April 30, 2024.
    • Arctic Colour continued occupying the property post-termination, despite a formal lease termination by Grove due to continued maintenance breaches, prompting Grove’s petition for possession and compensation.
  • Legal Issues:

    • Relief from Forfeiture: Arctic Colour requested relief based on its investment and claim of having addressed most deficiencies. However, the court dismissed the relief due to Arctic Colour's ongoing and unaddressed breaches.
    • Judgment: The court ruled in Grove’s favor, granting him possession and compensation, holding that Arctic Colour failed to diligently meet lease obligations and conditions.

This ruling emphasizes the importance of tenants fulfilling maintenance duties in commercial leases, with equitable relief being limited for failure to meet conditions for lease renewal.

Amount for monetary award was not specified.

Supreme Court of Yukon
24-A0038
Real estate
Petitioner