Sudbury mall owners awarded $906K in court costs over Zellers pullout

The 50-year-old downtown mall began as the City Centre, became the Rainbow Centre, and, as the owners focus on office space, it has been renamed Elm Place. (File)

The owners of the Elm Place mall in Greater Sudbury have been awarded $906,000 in court costs following their decades-long battle with the owners of Zellers.

Vista Sudbury Hotels Inc. initially sued the Oshawa Group Ltd. for more than $12 million, claiming that the company’s decision to close the Zellers store in February 2004, 11 months before the end of its lease.

While it paid its rent for the full lease, Vista said the loss of its anchor tenant reversed the momentum it had built since buying the then Rainbow Centre in 2001.

The 409,000-square-foot mall opened in 1970 and operated for years as the City Centre Mall. Vista bought the property in June 2001, after it went into receivership and was dealing with a vacancy rate of 60 per cent.

The new owners spent money and started a number of initiatives that reduced the vacancy rate to 40.1 per cent by the end of 2003.

“Vista alleges that Zellers’ closure occurred at a critical time for the mall,” a court ruling said.

Killed momentum

“It submits that Vista’s revitalization of the mall was succeeding, and that Zellers’ untimely closure killed its momentum and halted the mall’s growth.”

While not awarding $12 million, the court ruled earlier this year 2026 that Vista was entitled to compensation that totaled $933,573, when interest was included.

A decision released July 6 also awarded Vista court costs almost equivalent to the settlement: $906,704.33. In part, Vista was awarded costs because it had made an offer to settle, unlike the defendants.

“The plaintiffs submitted a bill of costs in support of their position on costs,” the court decision said.

“Overall, I find that the hours and fees claimed for legal services provided are reasonable. The bill of costs clearly distinguishes between fees for services prior to the offer to settle and fees for services following the offer to settle.”

Read the full decision here.