Treadstone Associates
Ask an Expert · Commercial Leases

Do BC and Alberta commercial landlords have to be reasonable when refusing to consent to a lease assignment?

Ontario legislates a floor under a landlord’s discretion. British Columbia and Alberta do not — and the absence is not an oversight in either province’s statute book.

Treadstone Associates · Updated 2026

Short answer

  • • Ontario’s s.23 has no BC or Alberta equivalent — a full-text search of both provinces’ statute books for the operative word Ontario’s section turns on returns nothing.
  • • Both provinces override a consent covenant only where the tenant is bankrupt, only on a trustee’s application, and only against a deposit: three months’ rent in BC, six in Alberta.
  • • BC’s Law Institute recommended enacting Ontario’s rule in 2009. The legislature did not.
  • • In both provinces, the assignment clause the parties signed is the entire answer to how much discretion the landlord has.

The rule

Neither province has it. BC’s Commercial Tenancy Act, Law and Equity Act and Property Law Act contain no equivalent to Ontario’s deemed reasonableness proviso, and Alberta has no commercial tenancies statute at all — its King’s Printer catalogue lists a Residential Tenancies Act, which by its own terms “applies only to tenancies of residential premises,” and a Landlord’s Rights on Bankruptcy Act, which is not a general tenancies statute. See Residential Tenancies Act (Alberta), s.2(1). Outside insolvency, a buyer in Vancouver or Calgary is managing a different risk than a buyer in Toronto: no statute limits the landlord’s discretion, so the lease’s own wording is the only source of any reasonableness standard at all.

What both provinces do legislate is narrower, and it is insolvency-specific. BC’s Commercial Tenancy Act s.29(3) lets a court override a consent covenant on a trustee’s application where the tenant is bankrupt, on condition the transferee “deposit with the landlord a sum equal to 3 months’ rent, or supply to the landlord a guarantee bond approved by the court.” See Commercial Tenancy Act (BC), s.29. A solvent buyer of a solvent business gets nothing from that section.

When it changes

BC’s Property Law Act shows the legislature knows how to write this duty when it wants to — s.24(4) requires a mortgagee or vendor under an agreement for sale not to “unreasonably refuse to grant the mortgagee’s or vendor’s approval under this section.” That duty reaches a mortgagee and a vendor, not a landlord, which is why it shows the omission for leases is a choice, not an oversight. See Property Law Act (BC), s.24(4). And a consent, once given, is narrow: the Law and Equity Act s.29(1) says it “extends only to the permission actually given.” See Law and Equity Act (BC), s.29(1).

Where this played out

Case Files: the relief window that closed when the Crown sold the lease is an Ontario file, and the mechanism it turns on — a lease reverting on the tenant’s dissolution — is corporate law, not landlord consent, so the province-specific gap here does not change its outcome.

Sources

See where AI pays off first in your business.

A 30-minute call is enough to tell you whether AI pays for itself here.

The Canadian benchmark

What do businesses like this one actually sell for?

Canadian small-business transaction data is not published anywhere, so most valuations in this country quote an American benchmark. The Deavo–Treadstone Acquisition Index is a daily record of Canadian listings built to replace that: asking-price distributions by province and city are published now, and days on market, departure rates and asking-to-sale spreads follow as the series lengthens. Leave an email and we will tell you as each measure lands.

No pitch, no listings. One email when the first report lands.