- About Us
- Franchise Law
- Business Disputes
- Our Important Court Cases
- What’s New
How Ben Hanuka’s advocacy has been treated by judges in court decisions:
Excerpts from Reasons for Decision of a Judge of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Quizno’s Class Action settlement approval:
 Counsel for the plaintiffs, Mr Hanuka – who was selected by them because of his specialization and expertise in franchise law -…
 After considering, and weighing, the benefits to be provided in the settlement agreement against the litigation risks in continuing with the proceeding, Mr Hanuka recommended to his clients that it be accepted as fair and reasonable and in the best interests of the putative class. They accepted the recommendation and I am satisfied that great weight should be given to his exercise of professional judgment. As well as having special knowledge and expertise in franchise law, his commitment to serving the best interests of his clients and the class is not in question. He has been in frequent communication with a number of the franchisees – as well as with the plaintiffs – and it was notable that even the most vehement opponents of the settlement and critics of Quiznos did not question his diligence and dedication in attempting to advance their interests.
… I am in agreement with Mr Hanuka’s assessment of the litigation risks and, even if I had doubts on the question, I would give considerable deference to his judgment made after an informed and careful consideration.
 Mr Hanuka and his colleagues have discharged their professional responsibilities to their clients and the class with diligence and they have tenaciously maintained their claims against defendants who were determined to resist them with equal tenacity. The issues under the Arthur Wishart Act are novel and the claims advanced in the pleading were carefully and creatively designed.
July 18, 2008
Al-Harazi v. Quizno’s Canada Restaurant Corporation, 2007 CanLII 27977
Excerpts from Reasons for Decision of a Judge of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in successful lawsuit involving shareholders’ dispute:
 On Nov. 27th, B in cross examination indicated with respect to the lack of records regarding in this case the IF store:
A: I told you, Mr. Hanuka., I don’t have records. You can ask me ten times in different variables the answer will be the same. I have no records
Q: And who is to blame?
A: For lack of records.
December 30, 2003
Temkin v. International Fish Co. Ltd., 2003 CanLII 16624
Excerpts from Reasons for Decision of a Judge of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in successful lawsuit against Country Style Foods:
… The defendants [Country Style Foods] could have settled the case. They did not. As far as I am aware, they made no offer to settle – reasonable or otherwise. They did not make timely disclosure, but forced the plaintiffs to bring a motion in that regard.  The defendants [Country Style Foods] are sophisticated commercial entities. They have been involved in litigation in the past, both as plaintiffs and defendants. They have a clear idea of what is at stake in terms of costs of litigation. They chose to continue the case through to the end of trial. I cannot see that a reasonable, if high, award of costs will have any effect on their ability to litigate in the future.
… Plaintiffs’ counsel [Ben Hanuka] was extraordinarily thorough and detail-oriented. That is time consuming.
April 5, 2012
1159607 Ontario Inc. v. Country Style Foods, 2012 ONSC 2150Back
Author: Anthony Pugh, Student-at-Law, Law Works P.C. Editor: Ben Hanuka In 1680960 Ontario Inc. v. Read More
Author: Anthony Pugh, Student-at-Law, Law Works P.C. Editor: Ben Hanuka In Richmond Hill (Town) v. Read More
We are pleased to announce that Law Works’ principal, Ben Hanuka, has recently completed the Toronto Commercial Arbitration Society’s ‘Gold Standard© Course in... Read More
We are pleased to announce that the Ontario Superior Court in London, in a decision released last year (which came to our attention only recently) quoted with approval Ben... Read More