Articles - Focus on Franchising

The Supreme Court of Canada's two recent decisions in C.M. Callow Inc. and Wastech Services Ltd. revisited and clarified the principles of good faith contractual performance formulated in Bhasin. While it remains to be determined whether the common law duty of good faith is different from the franchise-specific duty of good faith and fair dealing, these general principles of contract law have important implications for parties to the franchise relationship.

The recent decision of the Alberta Court of Appeal in 1777453 Alberta Ltd. v. Got Mold Disaster Recovery Services Inc. provides important insight into the calculation of net loss damages upon the termination of the Franchisee-Franchisor relationship. This article provides a brief of the case and analysis of how the Court clarified damages from a net loss perspective, along with other issues.

When the franchise relationship comes to an end, ensuring dissociation from the franchisor while continuing on with business can present challenges. In this case the Court dealt with a dispute as to whether there had been dissociation per the parties' agreement, and provides guidance on what constitutes commercially reasonable efforts.

Penalty and liquidated damages clauses may seem like an attractive option in the contractual legal toolkit for franchise agreements. However, there are potential drawbacks and drafting considerations to keep in mind. This article provides an overview of these clauses, their benefits, and thoughts on their utility in the franchise context.

A note of welcome from our Section Chair, David Shaw, highlighting the group's activities and upcoming programs for this year.

The Supreme Court's recent decision in 1688782 Ontario Inc. v. Maple Leaf Foods defines a supplier's scope of duty of care for pure economic loss and speaks to the nature of the franchise relationship.

Long-awaited amendments to Ontario's Arthur Wishart Act have now come into force. This article highlights the new amendments and provides insight into their interpretation and potential impact.

In 2352392 Ontario Inc. v. Msi, the Ontario Court of Appeal delivered a significant decision that will impact the application of Section 6(3) of the Arthur Wishart Act. The decision, technically read, allows court pleadings to constitute a valid notice of rescission under the Act.  However, the principles applied by the Court of Appeal shed light, more broadly, on a new level for how the Act will be interpreted in favor of franchisees.

In Raibex the Ontario Court of Appeal narrowed the availability of rescission for franchisees, stating that the availability of rescission under s. 6(2) of the Arthur Wishart Act was dependent on whether the franchisee was effectively deprived of the opportunity to make an “informed investment decision”. The recent decision of 2483038 Ontario Inc. v. 2082100 Ontario Inc. provided clarification on this issue and on who might constitute a franchisor’s associate pursuant to the Act.   

In 0923063 B.C. Ltd. v. JM Food Services Ltd., 2019 BCSC 553, the court held that cutting franchisee's supplies off is breach of contract and of the duty to perform in good faith warranting punitive damages. This case update reports on the court's decision and analysis.