I will try. I can do it in English, but not in French.
There are six files between us--the crown--and Rosdev. Three files are instituted by Rosdev; three files are instituted by us.
To understand the background, you have to know that in the case of both leases--for both L'Esplanade Laurier and Les Terrasses de la Chaudière--we do not control. We have leased from the owner less than 100% of the space. There is space remaining with the owner and there is some space that we leased that we have sublet back to the owner.
This has created a situation where we have shared operating costs. We have shared property taxes, shared hydro bills, shared water costs, sewage...all of these operating and maintenance costs are shared. There had already been some disputes with the old owner, with O&Y, on the calculation of the shared costs. These were largely resolved at the time that Rosdev purchased L'Esplanade Laurier.
Our first file was filed by Rosdev in 2003, and this is for $24 million. It is with respect to the appropriate division of those operating costs. They claim that we owe them $24 million. We dispute that amount.
The Department of Public Works filed the second claim for damages of $2.7 million. We filed this in August 2004. This is when the caulking work was not, in our view, properly completed. I have to say these issues are all before the court, and I'm just giving you fact. I'm not going to comment on my view of the merits. But caulking, in the crown's view, was not properly completed.
The third claim relates to the option to purchase, which I believe you've already been informed about. There are two possible interpretations. We interpreted the lease provision. It gives the crown an option. There are two option periods, 2000-2005 and 2005-2010. If we exercise the option in the first option period, 2000-2005, everyone agrees the option price would be zero. What the crown did was give notice of its intention to exercise that option in 2004, but told Rosdev it would close on the option in 2010 at zero dollars. Rosdev said no, and we went to the court for an interpretation.
At trial we were told.... It was decided more or less on a summary application. The judge said that there were no issues; there were no facts in dispute. We couldn't exercise it in 2010 for zero; we could exercise it in 2010 for $18 million. That decision was appealed on procedural grounds that there were factual issues in dispute--that it was not appropriately decided in a preliminary matter--and the court of appeal sent that whole thing to trial and we are hoping for an early trial date.
The fourth claim was filed in April 2005 by Rosdev for damages it alleges it suffered out of the crown's termination of its property management agreements of both of those complexes. It says that it suffered damages; they've now amended their claim to $9.8 million, and they're also suing for reinstatement of the management agreements.
The fifth claim was filed in October 2005 by Rosdev with respect to Les Terrasses de la Chaudière and includes a counterclaim by PWGSC. This one is complicated. There are a whole lot of issues here. Rosdev at one point collected double rent from us through a clerical error on our part. We set off that rent against money we otherwise owed to Rosdev. Rosdev is now suing to collect that double payment. That's one item. That's a small item, but there are about six different items in the claim concerning Les Terrasses de la Chaudière.
The sixth and final claim was filed in July 2006 by PWGSC for amounts owed to PWGSC arising out of the sublease. Remember, I said we sublet some of it back to Rosdev. Well, Rosdev, under that agreement, owes us a share of their net profit. There's commercial space in L'Esplanade Laurier, and they owe us a share, and it is our position that that share has not been paid.
So these are fundamentally the issues at dispute between us.
