Windsor Apothecary Ltd. v. Wolfe Group Holdings Ltd., (1996) 148 Sask.R. 234 (CA)

• Judge: Tallis, Vancise and Lane, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saskatchewan)
• Case Date: October 23, 1996
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (1996), 148 Sask.R. 234 (CA)

Windsor Apothecary v. Wolfe Group (1996), 148 Sask.R. 234 (CA);

    134 W.A.C. 234

MLB headnote and full text

Windsor Apothecary Ltd. (plaintiff/appellant) v. Wolfe Group Holdings Ltd. (defendant/respondent)

(Appeal No. 2395)

Indexed As: Windsor Apothecary Ltd. v. Wolfe Group Holdings Ltd.

Saskatchewan Court of Appeal

Tallis, Vancise and Lane, JJ.A.

October 23, 1996.

Summary:

The plaintiff leased premises in the defen­dant's mall. The lease prevented subletting without the defendant's consent, which was not to be unreasonably withheld. The plain­tiff subsequently requested the defendant's consent to sublease a portion of its premises. The defendant refused to consent. The plain­tiff felt that the consent was unreasonably withheld and brought an action against the defendant.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at 140 Sask.R. 233, held that the defendant's withholding of consent was reasonable and dismissed the action. The plaintiff appealed.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal dis­missed the appeal.

Landlord and Tenant - Topic 5606

Subleases - Granting of subleases - Con­sent of landlord - Unreasonable withhold­ing - What constitutes - The plaintiff leased premises in the defendant's mall for use as a pharmacy - The lease prevented subletting without the defendant's consent, which was not to be unreasonably withheld - The plaintiff felt that a medical doctor in the mall was necessary for its economic well-being - When the defendant was unsuccessful in attracting a doctor to the mall, the plaintiff decided to attempt to sublease a portion of its premises to a doctor and requested the defendant's con­sent - There was vacant space in the mall at the time - The defendant refused to consent - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that the withholding of consent was reasonable where it was not in the defendant's economic interest to allow the plaintiff to compete against it for ten­ants - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal dismissed the plaintiff's appeal.

Counsel:

K. Ready, Q.C., for the appellant;

P. Kelly, Q.C., for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on October 23, 1996, before Tallis, Vancise and Lane, JJ.A., of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal. The following decision of the Court of Appeal was delivered orally on October 23, 1996, by Lane, J.A., with written reasons delivered on October 24, 1996.