Wellington café closes over rent
A popular café on Wellington in Verdun is closing after a 60% rent increase, reviving calls for commercial rent controls. The Gazette piece includes a coda in which the café’s landlord denies asking for a 60% hike.
-
Kate
Reply
Jim 11:24 on 2026-05-11 Permalink
Sad to see them go. However, the update matters. If the landlord disputes the 60% figure, we should be careful treating one side of lease negotiations as the full story. It is still a shame, but commercial leases are business, and sometimes both sides walk away unhappy.
I understand the call for commercial rent controls, but I’m not convinced regulation is the easy fix. We see already how well-intended rules can create paperwork and compliance costs that bigger companies absorb more easily than small independents. More bureaucracy may hurt the very cafés and shops it tries to protect.
Better lease support, better advice for small tenants, and ways to help local business owners stay rooted would make more sense to me.
MarcG 11:39 on 2026-05-11 Permalink
The irony is that the café was part of the first wave of gentrification on Wellington and now they’re not bougie enough. Curious to see what type of business has the cash to pay the hiked rent – I’m thinking big chain coffee/resto.
Joey 11:51 on 2026-05-11 Permalink
Here’s hoping the reporter, Jesse Feith, gets to the bottom of this. The tenant says they were presented with a 60% increase. The landlord says “We never demanded a 60 per cent rent increase… Various market scenarios were discussed in the normal course of commercial negotiations, but a 60 per cent increase was never requested.” Someone is lying, and the truth-teller should be able to document it…
DavidH 14:21 on 2026-05-11 Permalink
Some commercial leases in retail include a % of sales. So it’s quite possible that what the building owner asks for does amounts to a 60% increase in the cafe owner’s mind but that they don’t know it. If the current lease doesn’t include a % for exemple and they now want to implement it, they can only guess what the % they are asking for amounts to in dollars.
When I was in CEGEP a million years ago one thing that was hammered in all the entrepreneurial classes is that you should always sign long-term leases for commercial space. People starting out don’t want to commit long term. They don’t know what will happen so they think that they want flexibility. Sort-term leases are usually much cheaper too. It feels like the better choice.
However, if you sign a short term lease, your only option is failure. If you succeed, either the owner grabs your margin by raising the rent or he can grab your business and the achalandage you built for him when you refuse and vacate the space. You build an original pizza place through sweat and tears and then it’s the landlord’s nephew running a pizza chain concession at the same address once you leave. It happened all over Promenade Masson in the 90s. Same thing happened more recently with Sabor Latino in Petite Patrie. They built a grocery and cantina business on Bélanger. Once things got good, the landlord wanted an insane rent increase otherwise they would grab the store. Sabor Latino moved to the Plaza rather then renew. The landlord now operates the exact same business Sabor Latino built and grew at the original location but under the name Andes grocery.
When you sign a long-term lease, if your venture succeeds, you win. You might have troubles at renewal but, in theory, you brand is established by then so moving is not necessarily a death sentence. If it fails, you don’t actually need to worry about the lease. It is cynical but, you or the corporation you created will most likely go bankrupt anyways. The lease will be dealt with by the bankruptcy like all the other financial obligations. It’s scary and unnatural but long-term is usually the better option.
Ian 20:41 on 2026-05-11 Permalink
That said, there is the flip side.
For example, Comptoir 21 was a very successful Fich & Chips pesto on Saint Viateur. It was doing great. A good combination of Local employees and local residents, good food at a decent price, license but kid-friendly, and a very decently balanced menu in terms of overhead and variety.
One day, at the height of Saint Viateur’s gentrification, the landlords decided to kick them out because they felt that they could get an even better, more expensive restaurant in that clearly successful spot at an even higher rent.
That location has stood empty ever since, because who TF wants to rent from a greedy landlord that might kick them out on a whim?
Ian 20:42 on 2026-05-11 Permalink
OK I meant Fish & Chips resto but “Fich & Chips pesto” might just be the concept restaurant we have all been waiting for. (damn you autocorrect)