This proceeding concerned purported exercises of an option to renew a lease by the defendant. The plaintiffs sought declaratory relief that the defendant’s purported exercises of the renewal option were invalid because the defendant was in breach of three provisions of the lease which had not been remedied at the time that the lease was purportedly renewed. The plaintiffs contended that the defendant’s breaches of the lease had arisen by reason of the defendant installing a 40 m printing press on the premises without first obtaining the landlord’s consent. The defendant contended that it had either not committed the breaches alleged or that it had remedied one admitted breach, including by seeking retrospective consent which had been unreasonably withheld by the landlord.

In granting the plaintiffs the declaratory relief they sought, Garde J concluded the defendant had breached each provision of the lease as alleged by the plaintiffs, and the defendant’s breaches continued to be unremedied at the time that the defendant purported to renew the lease. Importantly, Garde J rejected the defendant’s contention that its failure to obtain consent prior to installing the printing press could be remedied by the asking of retrospective consent. The notion of retrospective consent was inconsistent with the terms of the lease and was not supported by the authorities.

Back to Search Page