Restaurants

The franchisor required that the franchisee purchase a store through a conventional purchase and sale agreement before entering into a franchise agreement. By structuring the transaction this way, the franchisor attempted to circumvent the disclosure requirements that the Act imposes on franchisors. This court decision was among the earliest reported franchise disclosure decisions under the Arthur Wishart Act (Franchise Disclosure), 2000.

Ben Hanuka represented a group of approximately 200 franchisees in a class action suit against Quiznos after they signed a franchise agreement but never received a location for their restaurant. Quiznos did not finalize details about the lease and construction requirements of the location and the franchise agreement and related franchise document contained conflicting information. This was the first Ontario class action based on the disclosure requirements in the Arthur Wishart Act (Franchise Disclosure), 2000. The class action resulted in a settlement of partial refunds of the franchise fee to different groups of the class members.

The disclosure document did not contain key required components under the Arthur Wishart Act (Franchise Disclosure), 2000. The franchisee brought a court action to cancel (rescind) the franchise purchase and receive compensation. This is an influential Ontario court decision under the Arthur Wishart Act (Franchise Disclosure), 2000.

Franchisees renewed the franchise agreement, unaware that the landlord and Country Style were involved in a significant dispute about the renewal of the head lease, and that Country Style had agreed with the landlord to terminate the lease. This is an influential Ontario court decision under the Arthur Wishart Act (Franchise Disclosure), 2000.

Law Works represented the franchisor in this case, defending against a rescission claim brought by a franchisee. The Ontario Superior Court granted judgment for rescission to the franchisee against the franchisor and the franchisor’s associates on the basis that the franchisor’s certificate in the franchise disclosure document did not contain the required signature of the franchisor’s officer and director, and that another section in the franchise disclosure document, signed by the franchisor, contained misrepresentations.