Key Issues:

1. Claim for Conversion: 2668602 Ontario Inc. ("266") alleged that the London Life Insurance Company (the “Landlord”) unlawfully disposed of its racking system.
2. Defences: The Landlord argued:
   • The racking was "deemed abandoned" under the Sale Guidelines.
   • Alternatively, its presence constituted a trespass post-lease disclaimer.
3. Counterclaim: The Landlord sought damages for lost rental revenue caused by 266’s failure to remove the racking.

Key Facts:

• 266 purchased the racking from bankrupt companies in 2018 through a court-approved liquidation.
• The Sale Guidelines required removal of fixtures and equipment by January 15, 2019, unless agreed otherwise with the Landlord.
• 266 did not remove the racking by the deadline, and the Landlord treated it as abandoned.

Court’s Findings:

1. Deemed Abandonment:

   • The racking was covered under the Sale Guidelines’ abandonment clause.
   • The purpose of the guidelines was to ensure certainty and fairness in liquidation processes.
   • 266 failed to rebut the presumption of abandonment.

2. Trespass:

   • The racking’s presence post-disclaimer date was deemed trespass.
   • The Landlord’s actions, including disposal through Russell Systems, were found reasonable under a cost-benefit analysis.

3. Damages:

   • The Landlord’s counterclaim for lost rental revenue was dismissed for lack of evidence.
   • The Plaintiff’s claim for replacement costs ($7.91M) was also dismissed as the racking was lawfully disposed of.

4. Costs:

   • The Defendants were awarded partial indemnity costs of $331,242.

Conclusion:

The court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim and ruled in favor of the Landlord, emphasizing the importance of adhering to court-approved guidelines and the reasonableness of the Landlord’s actions.