commercial lease Archives - Ira SmithTrustee & Receiver Inc.

The Ira Smith Team is absolutely operational and Ira, in addition to Brandon Smith, is readily available for a telephone consultation or video meeting.

If you would prefer to listen to the audio version of this Brandon’s Blog, please scroll to the bottom and click on the podcast

Commercial Tenancies Act introduction

On June 18, 2020, Royal Assent was given to the Ontario Bill 192, Protecting Small Business Act, 2020, An Act to amend the Commercial Tenancies Act Ontario. The aim of this provincial law is to prevent commercial landlords from either terminating a commercial tenancy or distraining on a commercial tenant’s property. If that has already taken place, then this amendment to provincial law tries to compensate the commercial tenant for damages.

This is an updated to my April 27, 2020 blog titled, SMALL BUSINESS RELIEF PROGRAM: CANADA EMERGENCY COMMERCIAL RENT ASSISTANCE. In this Brandon’s Blog, I will describe how this Bill 192 amending the Commercial Tenancies Act works. As with everything, the devil is in the details.

Which commercial landlords qualify?

This Ontario law applies to all commercial landlords who:

Are eligible to obtain help under the Canada Emergency Commercial Rent Assistance (CECRA) for small businesses program. This is designed as an unsecured, interest-free, forgivable loan program administered by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC).
Can receive help under the CECRA if the landlord participated in a rent reduction contract with the commercial tenant having a moratorium on the eviction.

To get CECRA for small businesses, the landlord must:

own commercial real estate which is leased to one or more affected small business tenants;
go into (or have actually already entered) into a lawfully binding rent reduction agreement for the period of April, May and also June 2020 (presumably subject to extension of the program by the federal government), decreasing an affected small business renter’s lease cost by at least 75%;
ensure the rent decrease agreement with each affected renter includes:
- a postponement on eviction for the period throughout which the property owner consents to apply the loan funds; as well as
- a statement of rental revenue included in the attestation.

In order to be considered an affected small business tenant, the tenant has to have been in operation before March 1, 2020, as well as should not generate greater than $20 million in gross annual income when calculated on a combined basis, based upon 2019 earnings.

The landlord also cannot:

Have an owner holding a federal or provincial political office.
Controlled by a person holding such a political position.

CECRA will not include any federal, provincial, or municipal-owned properties, where a government is the landlord of the small business tenant. Initially, the landlord had to have a mortgage financing the property. CMHC later qualified that this was not the case.

Which small business tenants qualify?

Impacted small business lessees are businesses, including charitable and non-profit organizations that:

pay no greater than $50,000 in monthly gross lease cost per location (as specified by a valid and enforceable written lease).
creates no more than $20 million in gross yearly income, calculated on a parent company consolidated basis.
have experienced a minimum of a 70% decrease in pre-COVID-19 income.

Eligible small business tenants include those who have entered into written valid sub-tenancy arrangements that meet the CECRA requirements.

To determine the 70% reduction in earnings, the following two circumstances apply:

Your small business was operating throughout April through June 2019. Compare your gross income from April, May and June of 2020 to your revenues of April, May and June of 2019.
The small business was not running throughout April through June 2019. In this case, compare your average gross revenue from April, May and June of 2020 to your typical gross income for January and February 2020.

How is the Commercial Tenancies Act amended?

Bill 192, Protecting Small Business Act, 2020, modifies the Commercial Tenancies Act to forbid particular activities by property owners if the landlord is or would qualify to receive assistance from the CECRA. If the landlord is accepted and receives the CECRA help, then these provincial amendments cease to apply. The reason for that is because, under the federal program, the landlord has agreed not to evict the tenant.

This provincial legislation also forbids Judges from making a writ of possession that is effective throughout the non-enforcement time out if the basis for making the writ is arrears of rent under the lease. These Commercial Tenancies Act amendments also ban landlords from enforcing a right of re-entry and from seizing any property of the tenant by way of distress for arrears of rent throughout the non-enforcement time period.

The non-enforcement period begins on May 1, 2020, and ends midnight September 1, 2020. This will obviously be subject to either extension or even termination on an earlier day to be called by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor.

If a landlord exercises a right of re-entry between May 1, 2020, and August 31, 2020, inclusive, the commercial tenant has to recover possession of the commercial space. The tenancy is regarded to be reinstated on the same terms and conditions unless the property owner and the occupant agree on other terms and conditions If it is incapable to return the leased premises to the commercial tenant, the landlord must compensate the tenant for damages.

Similarly, if a commercial landlord distrains against a tenant’s goods in the non-enforcement period on account of rent arrears under a commercial lease, the landlord needs to return any unsold items to the tenant.

Some obvious comments

I have some comments on this Bill 192, Protecting Small Business Act, 2020, An Act to amend the Commercial Tenancies Act Ontario. Most of my comments I think will be obvious. To date, whatever I have read on how landlords feel about these amendments, has not been positive. It will be interesting to see if the Courts reopen prior to August 31, if any landlords go to Court to overturn it and what the Court decision will be.

I think the real strength of the amendments to the Commercial Tenancies Act comes from the fact that the Ontario Courts are closed. No one can challenge the law on a constitutional basis at this time!

So my comments are:

The wording of the Bill to see if a landlord qualifies is:

80 (1) Subject to subsection (2), this Part applies to a tenancy in respect of which the landlord satisfies either of the following criteria:

The landlord is eligible to receive assistance under the Canada Emergency Commercial Rent Assistance for small businesses program.
The landlord would be eligible to receive assistance under the Canada Emergency Commercial Rent Assistance for small businesses program if the landlord entered into a rent reduction agreement with the tenant containing a moratorium on eviction.

A landlord is only “eligible to receive assistance” based on a two-part test; one is a landlord test and the other is a commercial tenant test. A landlord should have the right to receive sufficient financial information from its tenant to see if the tenant can meet its test of reduced gross revenue. The only way a landlord is eligible is if the tenant meets the required tests.

What if the tenant refuses to divulge that information? Can the landlord merely take the position that it is not “eligible”? If so, then the landlord could either terminate the lease or effect distraint. Again, with the Courts closed, it will be all over before the tenant can have their day in Court.

These amendments are effective beginning on May 1, 2020. The emergency COVID-19 shutdown in Ontario began on March 17, 2020. As a result, many small businesses were not in a position to make their April rent payment. Does this mean that landlords who either terminated a commercial lease or distrained on the tenant’s assets before May 1 are exempt?
The landlord is not entitled to either terminate the lease or distrain during the non-enforcement period on the assets for non-payment of rent. What if the tenant, prior to the Ontario emergency shutdown was in breach of the lease for other reasons. If the landlord has not yet taken action as a result of those breaches and wishes to get rid of the tenant for reasons other than rent arrears, can the landlord take action during the non-enforcement period as long as rent arrears is not one of the reasons?

A commercial tenant whose landlord terminated the lease is entitled to compensation for damages if the premises cannot be handed back to the tenant. How the damages are calculated are not spelled out. It will most certainly be the subject matter of future litigation.

A commercial tenant whose landlord distrained on the tenant’s property is only entitled to a return of the property that has not yet been sold. This is presumably because the lease has not been terminated. However, I presume the tenant will not be operated again if all or most of its property has been sold. Now what? More litigation no doubt.

The amendments contained in the Bill 192, Protecting Small Business Act, 2020, An Act to amend the Commercial Tenancies Act Ontario is obviously done to persuade landlords to enter into the CECRA program with their tenants. That is a good thing. As you can see from my comments, it is more persuasion and relying on the fact that the Courts are closed than brilliant wordsmithing language.

Commercial Tenancies Act summary

I hope you have found this Commercial Tenancies Act Brandon’s Blog interesting and helpful. The Ira Smith Team family hopes that you and your family members are remaining secure, healthy and well-balanced. Our hearts go out to every person that has been affected either via misfortune or inconvenience.

We all must help each other to stop the spread of the coronavirus. Social distancing and self-quarantining are sacrifices that are not optional. Families are literally separated from each other. We look forward to the time when life can return to something near to typical and we can all be together once again.

Ira Smith Trustee & Receiver Inc. has constantly used clean, safe and secure ways in our professional firm and we continue to do so.

Income, revenue and cash flow shortages are critical issues facing entrepreneurs, their companies and individual Canadians. This is especially true these days.

If anyone needs our assistance for debt relief Canada COVID, or you just need some answers for questions that are bothering you, feel confident that Ira or Brandon can still assist you. Telephone consultations and/or virtual conferences are readily available for anyone feeling the need to discuss their personal or company situation.

The Ira Smith Team is absolutely operational and Ira, in addition to Brandon Smith, is readily available for a telephone consultation or video meeting.

Introduction

I reviewed a Court decision out of Alberta that was rendered on April 4, 2019. The case is Royal Bank of Canada v. Parkland Properties Ltd., [2019] A.J. No. 412, from the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench. In reviewing this case about an insolvent tenant, who later became a bankrupt commercial tenant, the same would hold true in Ontario. I thought it would be helpful to review the principles in this decision, and how it would relate to an Ontario Commercial Lease Agreement.

Background

Unlike Ontario, there is no commercial tenancy act in Alberta. However, there are various other provincial statutes and a Supreme Court of Canada decision, that provides guidance for commercial landlords and tenants in Alberta.

If a commercial lessee breaches a business lease in Alberta, similar to Ontario law, a landlord has various alternatives. For a properly worded commercial tenancy agreement, the main alternatives include distraining on the tenant’s assets located on the leased commercial premises or terminating the commercial tenant’s lease. Suing for any damages, including rent arrears and for the unexpired duration of the lease, may also be part of the landlord’s rights.

Distraint or distress is the seizure of the commercial tenant’s property in order to acquire the repayment of rent arrears and various other amounts owed. Distraint normally includes the seizure of goods belonging to the lessee on the premises by the landlord to market them for the settlement of the amount owing at that point in time under the lease.

In a properly conducted distraint, no Court order is required. The landlord must also be careful when advising the tenant of the distraint, to also notify the lessee that the lease is not being ended. This way, the landlord may recoup further unpaid amounts or other damages in the future. On a practical basis, if the tenant does not bring the lease into good standing and allows the distraint to be completed, the business is probably over anyway.

Under the Alberta Civil Enforcement Regulation, the landlord would hire a bailiff to carry out the distraint and sale of the assets. This is what happened in the Royal Bank of Canada v. Parkland Properties Ltd. case I recently reviewed.

The facts and decision of the case

The facts are pretty simple. The landlord began and completed distraint proceedings against its tenant. At the time of the seizure, the insolvent tenant was $79,586 behind in rent. The landlord’s bailiff completed the sale of the assets. After taking its fee, the bailiff paid over to the landlord the amount of $223,990. The tenant became a bankrupt company after the funds were paid to the landlord.

Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) was a secured creditor of the tenant. At the date of bankruptcy, RBC was owed $498,799. RBC took an action that originally was an action that could be taken by the licensed insolvency trustee (formerly known as a bankruptcy trustee). It did so under section 38 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) (BIA). The Trustee was either unwilling or unable to launch the action. The action RBC launched was for the repayment of the amount realized by the landlord as a preferential payment under section 95 of the BIA.

The Court ruled partly in favour of RBC. It ordered that the landlord could retain the amount of $79,586. The balance of $144,404 could not be kept by the landlord and had to be paid over to RBC.

Ontario commercial lease agreement: The same decision would be reached in Ontario

I am satisfied that the same decision would be reached in Ontario. As I mentioned above, distraint is not a termination of the lease. Although the practical effect would be to end the tenant’s business, the lease continues and so does the tenant’s obligations to the landlord. The commercial tenant’s rights under its Ontario commercial lease agreement also remain. Distraint is a mutually exclusive remedy from termination of the lease.

The Court determined that Section 95 of the BIA does not apply to set aside distraint proceedings by a landlord under a commercial tenancy agreement in arrears. That section just included payments made by an insolvent party. The Court also stated that Section 70 of the BIA protects the landlord’s distraint because the distraint was fully completed by payment to the landlord.

However, the Court did find that the payment to the landlord was extreme. As you will recall, the distraint is based on the arrears at the time of effecting the distraint. In this case, the amount outstanding at that time was $79,586. However, the amount paid to the landlord, after the costs of distraint, was $223,990. Commercial lease landlord responsibilities include providing proper accounting. Therefore, the Court ordered that the excess over what the landlord was owed, $144,404, had to be paid to the plaintiff, RBC.

If there were no secured creditors and the Trustee launched the application, the result would have been the same. The only difference would be that the excess funds would have to be paid over to the Trustee. The result in Ontario would be the same as in this Alberta case.

Is your company insolvent?

Is your company behind in its rent payments under its Ontario commercial lease agreement? Does it not have enough cash to continue its operations?

If so, call the Ira Smith Team today. We have decades and generations of experience assisting people and companies trying to find financial restructuring or a financial debt negotiation strategy. As a licensed insolvency trustee (formerly called a bankruptcy trustee), we are the only professionals licensed, recognized and supervised by the federal government to supply bankruptcy and insolvency advice and carry out strategies to aid you to stay clear of bankruptcy.

Call the Ira Smith Team today so you can cut the stress, anxiousness and pain from your life that your financial issues have caused. With the special roadmap, we establish just for you, we will immediately return you right into a healthy and hassle-free life.

You can have a no-cost analysis so we can help you fix your company’s debt troubles. Call the Ira Smith Team today. This will allow you to go back to a new healthy and balanced life, Starting Over Starting Now.