Key Issues:
- Claim for Conversion: 2668602 Ontario Inc. ("266") alleged that the London Life Insurance Company (the “Landlord”) unlawfully disposed of its racking system.
- Defences: The Landlord argued:
- The racking was "deemed abandoned" under the Sale Guidelines.
- Alternatively, its presence constituted a trespass post-lease disclaimer.
- 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:
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.