Supreme Court of Canada
Causeway Shopping Centre Ltd. v. Muise, [1969] S.C.R.
274
Date: 1968-11-18
Causeway Shopping
Centre Ltd. (Plaintiff) Appellant;
and
Thomas C. Muise (Defendant)
Respondent.
1968: November 18.
Present: Cartwright C.J. and Martland, Judson,
Ritchie and Spence JJ.
ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF NOVA
SCOTIA, APPEAL DIVISION
Contracts—Purported lease signed by
parties—Defendant “or his nominee” named as lessee—Whether document a valid
lease.
The plaintiff company was the owner of a shopping
centre, a section of which had been set aside for use as a bowling alley.
With a view to leasing this space, the company entered into negotiations with
the defendant who expressed the intention that he would not incur any personal
liability but would form a company to enter into the lease. The parties signed
a document in which the lessee was named as “Thomas C. Muise or his nominee”.
Shortly thereafter, the company’s solicitor forwarded to the defendant a copy
of the document together with a letter which referred to an interpretation by
the landlord permitting the defendant to assign the lease to his nominee. This
letter was accepted and confirmed by the defendant.
Subsequently, the defendant’s nominee went
into possession and paid rent for a time. It later fell into arrears and
finally ceased operations. The plaintiff then brought action against the
defendant for the arrears of rent, additional rent required by the lease and
for damages. The trial judge dismissed the plaintiff’s action and on appeal the
Court of Appeal by a majority decision dismissed the appeal. The plaintiff then
appealed to this Court.
Held: The
appeal should be dismissed.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Supreme Court
of Nova Scotia, Appeal Division,
dismissing an appeal from a judgment of Bissett J. Appeal dismissed.
[Page 275]
C. Benne Burchell, Q.C., and Allan E.
Sullivan, for the plaintiff, appellant.
D. Merlin Nunn, for the defendant,
respondent.
The following judgment was delivered by
THE CHIEF JUSTICE (orally for the Court):—Mr. Nunn,
we do not find it necessary to call upon you. We are satisfied that the
document ex. M-1 referred to during the argument as a lease is not a lease
because the lessee is named as “Muise or his nominee”.
Under this document Muise was not liable as a
lessee. He subsequently named Olympic as his nominee and this company went into
possession and paid rent for a time. No assignment of the purported lease was
necessary or attempted to bring about this result. The letter ex. M‑2
in referring to an interpretation permitting Muise to assign the lease to his
nominee does not transform Muise into a lessee under the original document.
The appeal is dismissed with costs.
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Solicitors for the plaintiff, appellant:
Burchell, Sullivan, Smith & Campbell, Sydney.
Solicitor for the defendant, respondent:
D. Merlin Nunn, Halifax.
Email this Content