Articles 2019

Coming on the heels of the OBA Franchise Section's November 19, 2019 dinner program "If I Could Revise the Franchise Laws in Canada", the Ministry of Government and Consumer Services recently completed a public consultation process for proposed changes to the regulations under the Arthur Wishart Act (Franchise Disclosure), 2000, SO 2000, c 3 (the “AWA”). This article reviews some important anticipated changes.

The Ontario Superior Court recently confirmed that a franchisee is not entitled to sue for damages under s. 7 of the Arthur Wishart Act when a franchisor voluntarily, but without obligation under s. 5 of the AWA, provides a disclosure document that contains misrepresentations.  The decision in 2101516 Ontario Inc. v. Radisson Hotels Canada Inc. is good news for franchisors.

The Ontario Superior Court recently confirmed that a franchisee is not entitled to sue for damages under s. 7 of the Arthur Wishart Act (Franchise Disclosure), 2000, S.O. 2000, c. 3 (the “AWA”) when a franchisor voluntarily, but without obligation under s. 5 of the AWA, provides a disclosure document that contains misrepresentations. The decision in 2101516 Ontario Inc. v. Radisson Hotels Canada Inc., 2019 ONSC 3302 is good news for franchisors.

Restrictive covenants, particularly non-compete clauses, are regular features in franchise agreements. When franchise agreements often span many years, facts and circumstances may change with a franchisor’s reorganization, expansion of the franchise system, assignment of franchises, and any other number of factors that change the landscape within which the franchise agreement must be interpreted.

The Supreme Court of Canada recently held, in its highly anticipated decision in Telus Communications Inc. v. Wellman, that business customers of Telus cannot avoid the terms of a mandatory arbitration clause by joining a class action with consumers who are not bound by the arbitration clause.

In a recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, the analysis of whether an individual is considered an employee or independent contractor is given a thorough review, and brings into question the interplay of previous cases that have considered the nature of this relationship in a franchise context.

The concept of the “franchisor’s associate” is one of the vaguest concepts under Ontario franchise legislation and one of the most perilous for individuals offering franchises.

In the recent decision of Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corp. v. Hydro Québec, the Supreme Court of Canada considered the scope of the duty of good faith to re-write a contract, touching upon the heightened duty that can exist in “relational contracts”, such as franchise agreements.

In PQ Licensing S.A. v. LPQ Central Canada Inc., the Ontario Court of Appeal considered whether the mandatory mediation process prescribed by a franchise agreement impacted the limitation period applicable to a franchisee’s rescission claim.  The Court found that the franchisee’s claim for rescission was not barred even though the franchisee had delivered its notice of rescission nearly a decade prior.

Topics covered this week included franchise law and rescission, liability for wrongful patent enforcement, the duty to defend in the MVA context, family law (custody and access and breach of court orders), securities class actions, and mortgage enforcement. John Polyzogopoulos