Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Dispute arose over whether a commercial lease had been renewed for five years or had defaulted to a month-to-month tenancy.

• Plaintiff registered a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) to prevent the sale of the leased property.

• Defendant challenged the CPL’s validity and sought its cancellation under the Land Title Act, citing hardship.

• The court found no specific lease term had been clearly breached by the defendant.

• Plaintiff failed to file a formal response and did not appear in court, weakening its position.

• CPL was cancelled on condition that the defendant undertake to pay damages if awarded at trial.

Facts and outcome of the case

Background and parties involved

Innogene Technologies Corp, a commercial tenant, filed a notice of civil claim and registered a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) against property owned by Woodbine Enterprises Ltd., Inc. No. 429381. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant, its landlord, had breached a lease agreement and that both parties had agreed to renew the lease for an additional five years. The CPL, registered on April 10, 2025, was meant to obstruct a scheduled property sale by the defendant, worth $4.575 million, due to close on May 15, 2025.

The defendant, unaware of the CPL until April 17, sought its cancellation. It argued that the lease expired on March 1, 2025, and had rolled over into a month-to-month tenancy. The defendant applied for cancellation under sections 256 and 257 of the Land Title Act, which allow removal of a CPL when it causes hardship and inconvenience. The defendant also offered to provide an undertaking to pay damages if the plaintiff eventually succeeded in proving them at trial.

Procedural history and litigation posture

After demanding that the plaintiff voluntarily discharge the CPL, the defendant proceeded with a short leave application when no response was received. The plaintiff was served with application materials but failed to submit any response by the deadline. On the day of the hearing, the plaintiff emailed to oppose the CPL’s removal but did not attend or request an adjournment.

Legal analysis and decision

The court found that the CPL was causing real hardship by potentially derailing a legitimate sale that had been negotiated before the defendant was aware of the CPL. It also noted the plaintiff’s claim lacked specificity, particularly in not identifying the lease term allegedly breached and not seeking a declaration of leasehold interest. The court determined that damages were a sufficient remedy and that the plaintiff had not established a strong prima facie case warranting preservation of the CPL.

Based on this reasoning, Justice E. McDonald ordered the cancellation of the CPL, conditional on the defendant’s undertaking to pay damages if the plaintiff prevails at trial. The court found this undertaking sufficient to protect the plaintiff’s interests, given the weak claim and urgent nature of the property sale.

Final outcome

The defendant won the interlocutory application. The CPL was removed, allowing the property sale to proceed. No costs or damages were awarded at this stage, and the plaintiff retains the right to pursue damages later if they can be proven in trial.