Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 16 FEBRUARY 2015

Limiting Rights Of First Refusal Not An Easy Business

McMillan LLP
McMillan LLP
Contributor
McMillan LLP

McMillan LLP

The firm : McMillan LLP is one of Canada’s leading national law firms with offices in Montreal,...

View firm profile
Explore more from McMillan LLP

The decision sends a clear message to the landlord community that courts will go to great lengths to give effect to a tenant's right of first refusal.

CanadaReal Estate and Construction

The recent decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in 1440825 Ontario Inc. v Lenco Investment Ltd.1 sends a clear message to the landlord community (and perhaps more broadly) that courts will go to great lengths to give effect to a tenant's right of first refusal ("ROFR"), even where the lease contains language purporting to limit such ROFR. In particular, this judicial inclination will be more pronounced where facts suggest an absence of good faith on the part of the landlord in its dealings with the tenant.

Facts in Lenco

The landlord and tenant entered into a lease on February 7, 2013 that contained a ROFR in favour of the tenant to purchase the leased property. The ROFR obligated the landlord to notify the tenant in the event the landlord received a third party offer to purchase the property. The tenant was allowed 30 business days from receipt of the purchase offer to elect whether it wants to match the third party offer and purchase the property.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from