Articles - Focus on Franchising

What do you do when your franchisor client has been improperly named in litigation that should have been commenced against the franchisee? This article discusses a practical approach to the problem, with reference to a recent British Columbia decision involving Subway Franchise Restaurants of Canada Ltd.

In a relatively recent decision, 2212886 Ontario Inc. v. Obsidian Group Inc., the Ontario Superior Court of Justice found that a franchisee of the Crabby Joe's system was entitled to rescind its franchise agreement due to "significant and material" omissions in the franchisor's disclosure document. Interestingly, the absence of a copy of the head lease for the business premises did not form a basis for rescission, in the court's view.

A recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice adopts a new approach to evaluating a claim for rescission under section 6(2) of the Arthur Wishart Act, (Franchise Disclosure), 2000 (SO 2000, c 3). Instead of considering whether the franchisor’s disclosure was materially deficient, thereby amounting to no disclosure at all, this recent decision looks to whether the franchisee made an “informed decision” on the basis of the disclosure provided.

The franchise relationship, although one of independent contractors, may give rise to a finding of liability on the part of a franchisor for the acts and omissions of its franchisees if certain precautions are not taken. In this article, Daniel So and Sara Michienzi consider three relatively recent human rights applications and the approaches adopted by the provincial human rights tribunals in evaluating such liability.

On February 1, 2017, British Columbia joined Alberta, Ontario, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and Manitoba to become the sixth Canadian province to enact franchise legislation. In this article, the authors discuss the fundamental aspects of the B.C. Act and provide a practical and useful comparison of the B.C. Act to franchise legislation in the other five regulated provinces.

A brief overview of this year's Annual Franchise Law Conference.

In July 2016, special advisors leading the review of the Labour Relations Act (Ontario) and Employment Standards Act (Ontario) released an interim report, titled "Changing Workplaces Review: Special Advisors’ Interim Report". This article provides an overview of the salient aspects of the Report, with a particular focus on how the proposed amendments stand to impact the franchise industry.

As of January 1, 2017, the Healthy Menu Choices Act will require food service chains with 20 or more locations in Ontario to disclose calorie information for most standard food and drink items on menus, labels, tags and signage. This article provides an overview of the various disclosure obligations imposed by the Act and discusses the Act's application to, and impact on, franchisors in the food service industry.

Franchise agreements often contain non-competition provisions or other restrictive covenants to prevent departing franchisees from using the knowledge and expertise gained during the term of their agreements to compete against the franchisor once the relationship is over. However, depending on the facts of each case and the specific terms in the franchise agreement, these non-competes may not be enforceable.

While many franchisors are aware that they have disclosure obligations when granting a franchise to a prospective franchisee, many forget that they have the same disclosure obligations where a franchisee is selling their franchise to another franchisee.