How have the courts interpreted a surrender statement in the context of a commercial lease?

It was at the request of the landlord that the statement was prepared and signed by one of the tenants. It is not essential that the word “surrender” or any technical words be used. See Gray v. Chamandy & Sons (1929), 63 O.L.R. 495. It is sufficient, in law, if there is something between the parties to effect a surrender. I am satisfied the parties reached an agreement on February 18, 1978, that the lease would be at an end. The tenant was certainly of the view that his liability on the lease was over with the exception of the rent to be paid as agreed. The landlord did not indicate to the tenant that he was insisting on the performance of the lease or that the tenant would be liable for the rent or for damages. The landlord did not indicate that he would re-let the property on the tenants’ account. There were no discussions between the parties in this respect. In my view the landlord thought he would have no difficulty releasing the land for the same or a better price. It was not until approximately two months later, after the landlord found he was having difficulty renting the land for the same price, that he contacted the tenant and raised the matter of his claim.