Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Commercial sublease dispute arose from conflicting use of an industrial space and obligations under the rental agreement.

• Claims of interference with peaceful enjoyment were unsupported by sufficient or credible evidence of actual harm.

• Plaintiff failed to substantiate financial losses or productivity impacts from alleged contractual breaches.

• Defendant was not entitled to unilaterally impose additional rent charges without modifying the lease by mutual agreement.

• Partial reimbursement was awarded for a rent invoice paid under protest, as the additional charge lacked legal basis.

• Suspension of prescription deadlines due to COVID-19 extended the time limit for filing the reimbursement claim.

Background of the lease and dispute

In October 2017, Asphalte Équipements Canada inc. (AEC) entered into a one-year sublease agreement with 9360-5160 Québec inc. (9360), the primary tenant of a 40,000-square-foot industrial building. AEC had previously occupied a 5,000-square-foot section under a direct lease with the property owner, and this arrangement continued under the sublease, though AEC was relocated further to the rear of the premises.

Soon after, tensions emerged due to incompatibility between the parties’ business operations. 9360, a logistics and trucking company, complained about dust, odors, and fumes generated by AEC’s industrial work. AEC attempted to mitigate these nuisances but was ultimately relocated again within the building. This triggered a series of disputes over access to facilities, use of shared equipment, and the scope of AEC’s physical occupation.

Legal claims and procedural context

AEC claimed it was denied peaceful enjoyment of the leased space and sought $10,000 in damages for operational disruptions and inconvenience. It also sought reimbursement for certain additional rent charges that were paid under protest. Specifically, AEC argued that 9360 issued storage invoices unilaterally for extra space that AEC allegedly occupied, without any mutual agreement to amend the original lease.

9360, for its part, maintained that AEC had overextended its occupation beyond the agreed 5,000 square feet, justifying the additional charges.

Findings of the Court

The Court found that while the parties had a strained relationship and some operational difficulties did occur, AEC failed to prove that 9360’s actions caused actual, quantifiable harm. The judge noted that AEC relied solely on the testimony of its president and presented no corroborating evidence, such as financial statements, contracts, invoices, or third-party testimony to substantiate claims of business loss.

However, on the issue of additional rent invoices, the Court ruled that 9360 could not unilaterally impose extra charges for unapproved space usage without modifying the lease through mutual consent. The invoice numbered #1640, paid under protest, was found to be improperly imposed. As a result, 9360 was ordered to reimburse AEC in the amount of $3,161.82.

The Court also confirmed that this claim was filed within the legal time limit, taking into account the suspension of prescription periods during the COVID-19 pandemic. The remainder of AEC’s claims were dismissed for lack of proof.

Final outcome

The Court partially granted AEC’s claim. It ordered 9360-5160 Québec inc. to reimburse $3,161.82 for a specific invoice paid under protest, along with legal interest and indemnity from the date of formal demand. All other damages and claims were denied, and costs were awarded in accordance with the partial success.