Franchise Law & Business Disputes Blog
  • Franchise Law Blog

The Raibex Decision and the Definition of ‘Material Fact’ (Part II)

Posted on Feb 28 2018

This article, written by Ben Hanuka, was originally published by The Lawyer’s Daily February 8, 2018. Click here to view the published article. By Ben Hanuka Are the key reasons in this decision similar to and different from the “material fact” definition in the Act? As elaborated in the first part of this article, the Court of Appeal for Ontario held that disclosure deficiencies justify rescission under subsection 6(2) of the Act if the franchisee cannot “make a properly informed decision on whether to invest in the franchise.

Ontario Court of Appeal Clarifies What Amounts to “No Disc...

Andertoons Cartoon
Posted on Jan 29 2018

By Ben Hanuka  This article, written by Ben Hanuka, was originally published by The Lawyer’s Daily on January 31, 2018.

Court Boosts Arbitral Agreements

arbitral agreements law case
Posted on Mar 31 2017

This article, written by Ben Hanuka, originally appears in the March 31, 2017, issue of The Lawyers Weekly. Click here to view the full article.

Franchisee Cannot Escape Paying Additional Rent Under Sublea...

franchisee cannot escape paying extra rest at court
Posted on Mar 27 2017

Author: Gleb Matushansky, Student-at-Law, Law Works P.C.           Editorial Committee: Law Works P.C.

Court grants rescission where no site-specific disclosure

Answering all your inquiries for franchise law
Posted on Oct 24 2016

  In the decision of Raibex Canada Ltd. v ASWR Franchising Corp.

To receive blog updates by email please subscribe to our newsletter.

*Law Works is a Canadian law firm. It publishes a newsletter to inform subscribers about franchise and arbitration disputes. You may unsubscribe at any time by clicking the ‘unsubscribe’ link in our emails.

Recent Posts

Most Popular