Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Dispute over the termination of a commercial lease tied to the sale of a dental practice.

• Central question of whether relief from forfeiture should be granted under the Law and Equity Act.

• Multiple alleged breaches, including renovations without a permit and bad faith conduct.

• Significant credibility and reliability disputes between the parties’ evidence.

• Complexity and intertwined issues made the matter unsuitable for summary trial.

• Quantum of damages reserved for future trial proceedings.

Facts and outcome of the case

Background of the dispute
Dr. Gurkamal Grewal owned and operated a dental facility in Nanaimo, British Columbia. In December 2021, he sold his dental practice to Dentalcorp Health Services Ltd. for $8.5 million, consisting of $6.8 million for assets and $1.7 million for goodwill. As part of the transaction, Dr. Grewal retained ownership of the property and leased it to Dentalcorp, which continued operations as Wellington Dental Clinic.

In September 2023, Dentalcorp undertook a renovation of the clinic’s sterilization centre without obtaining the necessary building permits. Dr. Grewal alleged this breached the lease and, in December 2023, terminated the lease and sought to re-enter the premises. Dentalcorp initially denied any breach but later conceded it had failed to obtain the required permit. However, it argued that it had acted promptly to rectify the issue, that Dr. Grewal had obstructed its efforts to obtain the permit, and that it was entitled to relief from forfeiture due to the significant financial and operational losses it would suffer if the lease was not reinstated.

Procedural history and arguments
The matter was brought before the Supreme Court of British Columbia as a summary trial application under Rule 9-7. Dentalcorp sought a declaration that the lease termination was invalid and, alternatively, relief from forfeiture. Dr. Grewal opposed, arguing that credibility issues, incomplete discovery, and intertwined legal and factual matters made the case unsuitable for summary trial. He also alleged additional breaches and bad faith conduct by Dentalcorp, including defying a stop-work order, preventing municipal inspectors from accessing the premises, and making false accusations.

Court’s analysis
Justice Maisonville applied the legal principles for determining suitability for summary trial, noting that such a process is inappropriate where credibility and reliability are central to the dispute and cannot be resolved on documentary evidence alone. The judge found that multiple unresolved factual disputes, allegations of dishonesty, incomplete discovery, and overlapping issues between liability and quantum made it impossible to fairly resolve the matter at this stage. The court emphasized that litigating “in slices” risked inconsistent findings and was not an efficient use of judicial resources.

Decision and outcome
The court dismissed Dentalcorp’s application for a determination on liability, finding the matter unsuitable for summary trial. Dr. Grewal and Dr. Grewal Dental Corp. were the successful parties in this application. No damages or costs were awarded at this stage, and the quantum of damages will be determined at a later trial scheduled for July 2026. The decision leaves all liability and quantum issues to be addressed in a full trial.