Supreme Court

Decision Information

Decision Content

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA

Citation: 2502731 Nova Scotia Ltd. (Mailboxes Etc.) v. Plazacorp Retail Properties Ltd., 2008 NSSC 10

Date: 20080114

Docket: SH 177997

Registry: Halifax

 Between:                               2502731 Nova Scotia Limited

a body corporate, carrying on business under

the firm name and style of Mailboxes Etc.

                                                                                                                                                 Plaintiff

v.

 

Plazacorp Retail Properties Ltd.

a body corporate

Defendant

 

LIBRARY HEADING

 

Judge: The Honourable Justice Glen G. McDougall

 

Heard:            August 28-31, 2006, in Halifax, Nova Scotia

 

Subject:           Action for damages resulting from the breach of a commercial lease.

 

Summary:       The plaintiff was a tenant in a commercial shopping mall.  It entered into a lease in which it was accorded protection from competition from other mall tenants.  The exclusivity clause covered only certain primary services.  In renewing its lease with the new mall owners, the plaintiff insisted on maintaining its protection from internal competition.  After signing the new lease, the landlord expanded the mall to accommodate a new tenant.  Some of the services offered by this new tenant competed directly with the primary services offered by the plaintiff.  The plaintiff’s business revenue decreased immediately after the opening of this new outlet.

 

Issue:              (1)        Did the defendant breach its lease with the plaintiff when it allowed a new tenant to set up in the shopping mall even though the new tenant offered products and services similar to those primary services of the plaintiff which were protected under the lease?

 

(2)        Were the losses in revenue and goodwill suffered by the plaintiff caused by the defendant’s breach?

 

Result:            The defendant breached its lease with the plaintiff when it allowed the new tenant to set up in the shopping mall.  The new tenant offered products and services which competed directly with the primary services of the plaintiff.  The plaintiff had been granted protection from competition from other mall tenants under its lease.  The defendant’s failure to abide by the provisions of the lease resulted in losses to the plaintiff which the defendant was liable for.

 

 

 

THIS INFORMATION SHEET DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE COURT'S DECISION.            QUOTES MUST BE FROM THE DECISION, NOT THIS LIBRARY SHEET.

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.