Navigating Rent Obligations in Receivership Proceedings

When it comes to court-appointed receiverships, there can be much confusion surrounding the issue of rent obligations. Essentially, the main tension arises from the fact that existing legal principles don’t always align with what a receiver would like to do in practice.
Grey haired tenant man holds printed utility bill at table with notebook and laptop debts growth

When it comes to court-appointed receiverships, there can be much confusion surrounding the issue of rent obligations. Essentially, the main tension arises from the fact that existing legal principles don’t always align with what a receiver would like to do in practice. In most commercial tenancy cases involving an insolvent tenant, a receiver would like to:

  1. Occupy and use the leased property for a period of time while liquidating assets or finding a new tenant to take over the lease.

  2. Have the option to terminate the lease at some point during the receivership proceedings, such as when it becomes clear that a new tenant cannot be found or the property is no longer needed.

  3. Pay current rent based on the existing lease, but not pay any past rent or future rent beyond the time the receiver needs the property.

  4. Comply with the necessary “operating provisions” within the lease, but not necessarily be bound by other terms of the lease.

  5. Avoid incurring personal liability for any obligations under the lease.

However, it is important to note that a receiver must adopt a lease within a reasonable period of time; otherwise, the contract is rejected. Also, a receiver has no statutory or common law right to occupy the leased premises and only has such a right if granted by a court order. In terms of obligations, a receiver that has the benefit of the lease is obligated to abide by its terms, including the payment of rent, until the lease is determined (whether adopted or rejected) for the premises over which its appointment is extended. Additionally, if a lease is adopted by a receiver, it is personally liable for the performance of the lease, including the payment of arrears.

Court-appointed receiverships can be a tricky matter as the law and desired outcome can be difficult to reconcile. Factors such as the lack of vesting of property in a receiver and the lack of comparable rights bestowed upon receivers compared to trustees in bankruptcy can complicate the matter. It is important to note that a receiver must adopt a lease within a reasonable period of time and is obligated to pay rent for the premises, irrespective of occupation and use. However, these obligations and rights may vary on a case-by-case basis and it is best to consult with a legal professional for guidance.

Credit: Summarized from the excellent resource, Canadian Bankruptcy and Insolvency Law for Commercial Tenancies (Bish).

Share:

More Posts

Screen displaying social media platform icons representing online platform liability for defamatory reviews in Canadian law

Can You Sue Google for a Defamatory Review? What Canadian Law Says

A false review on Google Maps can reach thousands of people and stay there indefinitely. The person behind it may be anonymous and untraceable. Can you sue Google instead? Recent Canadian decisions in Thorpe v. Boakye and Jeffery v. Almusslat suggest the answer is increasingly yes, where the platform had notice, had control, and chose not to act.

What Every Director Needs to Know: Board Governance and Legal Obligations in Canada

The board of directors sits at the centre of Canadian corporate governance, bearing ultimate legal responsibility for how a corporation is managed. This article covers the statutory requirements for board composition, the meaning of director independence, what powers the board can and cannot delegate, and how unanimous shareholders’ agreements redistribute duties and liabilities between directors and shareholders.

Rows of bankers boxes on shelves representing third-party document disclosure in a Norwich Order application

Unmasking the Wrongdoer: Norwich Orders in Canadian Civil Litigation

When you know a wrong has been committed but cannot identify who did it, ordinary civil procedure offers no path forward. The Norwich Order fills that gap. It compels a third party mixed up in wrongdoing to disclose information before proceedings start, allowing a victim to identify a wrongdoer, trace stolen assets, or confirm whether a cause of action exists. This article explains the test, the limits, and how the remedy works in practice.

Pinocchio's nose growing as a metaphor for fraud by silence and concealment in Canadian law

What You Don’t Say: Fraudulent Concealment and the Duty to Disclose in Canadian Law

Silence is generally not fraud — but in a meaningful range of circumstances it is, and the consequences are identical to an outright lie. This article explains when Canadian courts will find that a party’s failure to speak is actionable fraud, what duty to disclose arises and from what relationships, how half-truths are treated, and how fraudulent concealment can suspend limitation periods that would otherwise bar a claim.

Confidential consultation

09000 00000

65 Queen Street west, Suite 1240, toronto, Ontario M5H 2M5

Requeast a Consulastion

our team of experienced lawyers are at your service