Canada: Limitations, And Capex, And Taxes! Oh, My!

Recent cases decided by the Ontario Superior Court should cause parties to take a closer look at long-used "typical" commercial lease provisions.


Consider the typical net lease: the tenant, throughout the term, pays the landlord a minimum rent every month, together with an amount that has been estimated in advance for common area maintenance costs and real property taxes. The parties agree that they will adjust the estimated amounts within a certain period of time after the actual amounts become known. So just how long can the landlord take to reconcile the estimates and the actuals before it is barred from doing so? The answer might surprise both tenants and landlords.

In a recent case in front of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Ayerswood Development Corporation v. Western Proresp Inc., the court considered this very issue. In front of the court was a lease that contained the following language:

"Wherever under this lease the Tenant is to pay its proportionate share, the amount thereof may be estimated by the Landlord for such period as the Landlord may from time to time determine, and the Tenant covenants and agrees to pay unto the Landlord the amounts so determined in monthly installments, in advance, during such period and with other rental payments provided for in this lease. As soon as practicable after the end of such period, the Landlord shall advise the Tenant of the actual amounts for such period and, if necessary, an adjustment shall be made between the parties."

The parties had entered into a lease in May 2001, for an initial term of five years. Throughout the term, the tenant paid minimum rent as set forth in the lease and the estimated amounts for common area maintenance charges and taxes, as provided by the landlord. After the lease had expired, the tenant remained in the premises while the parties attempted to negotiate a lease, and during that time, the tenant continued to pay minimum rent and estimated charges as it had done during the term. The tenant annually requested the actual amounts owing for common area maintenance charges and taxes, but was not provided with a reconciliation statement until after the lease had expired and the parties had failed to come to terms on the renewal, in December 2007. When the tenant received the bill for the reconciled amounts, the tenant denied its liability, asserting that the landlord was barred by the Real Property Limitations Act (Ontario) and the provisions of the lease, given that the landlord had not reconciled the amounts "as soon as practicable" after the end of each period.

In a surprise twist, however, the court found in favour of the landlord, and dismissed these arguments. First, the court noted that the lease did not define the "period" over which the amounts at issue could be estimated. If the parties had intended to define the period, they would have done so, in the court's opinion. The court found that the landlord had selected a period ending in December 2007, and had billed the tenant accordingly. The inference, of course, was that it was open to the landlord to do so, given the open-ended wording in the lease. Second, the court noted that section 17(1) of the Real Property Limitations Act (Ontario) provided that arrears must be claimed within six years after they became due. Rather than becoming due after they were accrued – which may have been the intuitive answer – the court found that the amounts did not become due until they were billed, namely in December 2007.

The Ayerswood case highlights the need for tenants, in particular, to pay even greater attention to the additional rent and reconciliation provisions in their leases. While flexibility is important, the landlord in Ayerswood was certainly aided by loose drafting. A prudent tenant will insist on annual reconciliations of additional rent amounts, and will ensure that the lease clearly outlines the consequences to the landlord for failing to deliver reconciliations within that time-frame.


Landlords and tenants often think they are on the same page when discussing treatment of capital expenditures. The general consensus is that these expenses are so large that they should not be charged fully in the year in which they are incurred, but rather excluded altogether or amortized over the life of the asset in question. But what exactly is a capital expenditure? Parties often discover to their surprise that they have different definitions of this "commonly understood" term.

In the case of RioCan Holdings Inc. v. Metro Ontario Real Estate Limited, the Ontario Superior Court considered whether a large-scale parking lot repaving project was recoverable by a landlord. RioCan, the landlord, resurfaced the pavement of the parking lot at its shopping centre in order to correct some cracking and distress created by general wear and tear. Although it maintained it was under no obligation to do so, RioCan then amortized those costs over 20 years and charged Metro its proportionate share of those costs. Metro paid its proportionate share for a few years without complaint, but then had an apparent change of heart, and alleged that the costs were capital expenditures for which it should not be liable. The lease itself allowed recoverability of paving repairs, except for those "expenditures which by accepted accounting practice" were of a "capital nature." Although the parties agreed that capital expenses should be excluded, it turned out that they had very different ideas about what, in fact, constituted a capital expense, in no small part because they had differing ideas of which accounting practices should govern the determination.

For its part, Metro argued that the lease should be governed exclusively by generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). Under GAAP, an item would be considered capital if it "enhanced the service potential" or was a betterment of the asset; for example, where the associated operating costs are lowered, or the life or useful life of the asset is extended. In this light, Metro argued that that by so substantially repairing the parking lot, RioCan had extended the useful life of the asset and the expenditure should thus be considered capital in nature.

RioCan, in contrast, argued that while "accepted accounting practices" might include GAAP, they could also include tax accounting practices that were not inconsistent with GAAP. Under tax accounting principles, RioCan argued that one of the key factors considered by the Canada Revenue Agency in determining whether an expense was capital in nature was whether it served to restore an asset to its original condition or to materially improve the asset beyond its original condition. The former would be considered a repair, while the latter would be considered a capital expense. In RioCan's view, the rehabilitation simply restored the parking lot to its close-to-new condition. Further, RioCan argued that, under tax accounting practices, a capital expense should be one that brought a future economic benefit to the asset owner. RioCan insisted that it was not profiting from the parking lot or benefiting from any increased shopping centre revenues as a result of the parking lot repair. Finally, although RioCan agreed that GAAP looked primarily to extension of the life of the asset, RioCan insisted that Metro was looking at the wrong asset – the relevant asset to RioCan's accounting was the shopping centre as a whole, and the parking lot rehabilitation did nothing to extend its life.

The court agreed with RioCan that the failure of the lease to specifically bind the parties to GAAP meant that GAAP was not determinative, although it could be instructive. However, the court rejected RioCan's argument that the relevant asset was the shopping centre, holding instead that the relevant asset was the parking lot. RioCan's internal accounting practices, which treated the relevant asset as the shopping centre and amortized the cost of the repair to reduce overall chargebacks, were irrelevant in the court's view. The dispute was about the parking lot, and the rehabilitation undoubtedly extended the life of the parking lot. Furthermore, the indirect economic benefits to RioCan – in the form of lower operating costs, attracting new tenants, retaining old tenants, and complying with the landlord's lease obligations – were sufficient to establish an economic benefit to the landlord such that the expense could be considered of a capital nature even under tax accounting practices. It was not necessary to directly link revenue to expense to prove a capital expenditure. On the facts before it, whether one used GAAP or tax accounting practices as the determining method, the court found that the parking lot repairs were of a capital nature and not recoverable by the landlord.

This case underlines the necessity of ensuring common understanding in drafting and interpreting leases, particularly where a lease excludes recoverability or requires amortization of capital expenditures. The best way for parties to accomplish this is to properly define terms and discuss intent before the lease is signed; ideally, the lease will explain what is meant by a capital expenditure and provide examples. Alternatively, parties may wish to consider a monetary threshold for expensing repairs fully in the year in which such expenses are incurred. For example, the parties may decide that any expenditure over C$200,000 must be amortized over the useful life of such item or a specified term, such as 10 years. Finally, parties should take care to identify the appropriate accounting standards that will govern any such determination in advance – whether GAAP, International Financial Reporting Standards or tax accounting standards – and understand the resulting treatment of capital and other expenditures thereunder.


It is not uncommon for standard commercial leases to allow for determination of a tenant's share of realty taxes with reference to separate assessments, notwithstanding that separate assessments have not been available in Ontario since 1998. However, the recently decided case of Terrace Manor Limited v. Sobeys Capital Incorporated underscores the need for landlords to look more closely at their standard form leases.

The facts of the case in front of the Ontario Superior Court were relatively simple. The lease provided, as many still do, that if separate tax assessments for the leased premises were not made available, the parties would use reasonable efforts to have them made available, and failing that, to obtain "sufficient official information" to determine what such separate assessments would have been if they had been made. If a separate assessment was not available, the tenant would be responsible for its "share" of taxes in respect of the leased premises. The tenant's share would be determined by the landlord reasonably and equitably, having regard to the generally accepted method of assessment and applicable elements utilized by the lawful assessment authority in arriving at the assessment of similar developments, if known. The tenant would not be required to pay more than its proportionate share of such taxes. The landlord had charged the tenant on a proportionate share basis from 1998 to 2003, when the tenant disputed the allocation, whereupon the landlord began to charge the tenant on an assessed-value basis until 2009. In 2009, the landlord then renewed its attempts to obtain recovery on a proportionate share basis.

Both parties acknowledged that separate assessments were no longer available. However, Sobeys asserted that sufficient "official information" – namely the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation's (MPAC) working papers – existed in order to permit the parties to proceed on this basis. The court held that MPAC's working papers and valuation records were official and sufficient to permit the parties to determine what the separate assessment would be, had it been made, because such papers contained "all of the information necessary to work out how the current value was calculated for each of the units". Moreover, the court noted that it was untenable for the landlord to now argue that this method was unreliable when it had charged the tenant for half a decade on this basis. Although the lease stated that the tenant would not pay more than its proportionate share, this was the ceiling on their recovery, and the landlord could not simply assume that proportionate share recovery was the default, particularly when the lease required its allocation to be made with regard to "the generally accepted method of assessment". As such, the court agreed with Sobeys that its share should be determined on an assessed value, rather than on a proportionate share basis.

The court's decision in the Terrace Manor case might seem difficult to reconcile with its previous rulings regarding MPAC's working papers (see, e.g., Indigo Books & Music Inc. v. Manufacturers Life Insurance Company, and Sophisticated Investments Ltd. v. Trouncy Inc. among others). In particular, the court had ruled in such cases that MPAC's working papers were not reliable, and did not create a separate "assessed value" of the premises. In some respects, then, Terrace Manor could be forgiven if it had assumed the court would find that such papers could not be relied upon. Importantly, however, the language in Terrace Manor's lease did not appear to give the landlord any discretion in considering whether the working papers were reliable enough to determine a separate assessment – rather, the lease provided that, if sufficient, the parties were to use such papers to determine what the separate assessment would have been, had it been made. Further, even if separate assessments were not available, the lease provided that the landlord's determination should be made with reference to assessment methods. These distinctions seemed to make all the difference to the court.

Like the other cases referred to in this article, the Terrace Manor case stresses the need to pay careful attention to the wording in the lease, rather than assuming that the parties will simply proceed in accordance with commercial norms. Courts will work hard to give effect to the intent of the parties, whatever it might be. While many landlords and tenants are "stuck" with leases that pre-date the elimination of separate assessments, both parties would do well to closely examine the wording of their lease to ensure that recovery of taxes is proceeding in the manner that the parties intended when they first struck the bargain contained in the lease. Landlords should also be careful not to compound any recovery problems by carrying over language from prior standard forms of leases into new leases. If the landlord's intent is to charge back taxes on a proportionate share basis, then it should say so; and if taxes on some portion of the development are to be excluded prior to the application of the proportionate share, the manner of determining the taxes attributable to such excluded portion should be clearly identified in the lease. Needless cluttering of the lease with left-over language from days when separate assessments were available can have dangerous consequences for landlords.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Events from this Firm
26 Oct 2018, Other, Vancouver, Canada

Cybersecurity, including data privacy and security obligations, has become a critical chapter in every company’s risk management playbook.

30 Oct 2018, Other, Toronto, Canada

Please join us for discussions on recent updates and legal developments in pension and employee benefits as well as employment law issues.

12 Nov 2018, Other, Toronto, Canada

Stories aren’t falsehoods. Stories are the root of all effective human communications: they motivate, animate and clarify. If you aren’t telling stories, you probably aren’t getting your point across.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions