1546273 Ontario Inc. (Margerita's Pizza) v. Rosestone Developments Ltd.

Decision 1: Building an Unassailable Paper Trail Over Six Months

Before taking any decisive action, we ensured that the landlord's correspondence over the preceding six months clearly and specifically identified every breach — insurance, pest control, steam cleaning, HVAC maintenance, garbage placement. Each notice was detailed, referenced the specific lease provisions, and gave the tenant a reasonable opportunity to comply.

This documentation strategy proved critical. When the matter came before the court, the judge confirmed that “reasonable notice was given” and that the correspondence “clearly specified breaches.” There was no ambiguity about what the tenant was required to do. The landlord had done everything right before acting.

Decision 2: Re-Entry — Forcing the Issue on the Landlord's Terms

On January 20, 2006, the landlord re-entered and sealed the restaurant premises. This was a deliberate, calculated escalation. Many landlords hesitate to re-enter because they fear the tenant will obtain relief from forfeiture — which is a discretionary remedy courts frequently grant, especially for operating businesses with employees.

We understood that risk. But we also understood that re-entry would accomplish something that two years of correspondence and three court orders had not: it would force the tenant to actually address the breaches immediately, under court-imposed conditions, rather than on their own indefinite timeline. By re-entering, the landlord shifted from chasing compliance to setting the terms of compliance.

Decision 3: Shaping the Conditions, Not Fighting the Relief

We did not waste credibility opposing relief from forfeiture outright. Courts in Ontario are inclined to grant relief when a tenant is paying rent and operating a business with employees — and this tenant met both criteria. Fighting that reality would have been counterproductive.

Instead, we focused on framing the conditions attached to the relief. The result: the tenant was given until February 15, 2006 — just two weeks — to comply with every lease term. If the tenant failed, the landlord could move to set aside the order. We also successfully defeated the tenant's “waiver” argument by pointing to section 14.07 of the lease, which expressly provided that acceptance of rent does not constitute waiver of breaches.

1. Document breaches systematically before acting. The landlord's six months of detailed breach notices — specifying lease provisions, identifying specific failures, and giving reasonable time to cure — created a record the court could rely on. When the judge found that “reasonable notice was given,” it was because the paper trail left no room for argument. If you are a landlord dealing with a non-compliant tenant, start building that record now, even if you are not ready to act.

2. Re-entry is a powerful tool when done correctly. Many landlords avoid re-entry because they assume the tenant will simply get relief from forfeiture. That may be true — but re-entry forces the issue into court on an accelerated timeline, puts the burden on the tenant to justify continued occupancy, and gives the landlord the opportunity to shape the conditions of any relief. Two years of letters accomplished nothing; re-entry resolved the matter in two weeks.

3. “Losing” on relief from forfeiture can still be a practical win. The tenant technically got back into the premises. But the landlord was awarded costs, every breach was judicially confirmed, and the tenant was given a strict two-week deadline to fix everything or face the order being set aside. This is what skilled landlord-side litigation looks like: positioning the case so that even a discretionary remedy the court is inclined to grant works in the landlord's favour.