Leading Canadian
FRANCHISE & BUSINESS LAW FIRM
  • Our Important Court Cases

Our Important Court Cases

Country Style (Sirianni)

Full Case Name: Sirianni v. Country Style (2012)

This is an influential Ontario court decision under the Arthur Wishart Act (Franchise Disclosure), 2000, on the issue of bad faith conduct. It is the first Ontario decision dealing with franchise disclosure and rescission rights that are intertwined with a franchisor’s bad-faith conduct in a prolonged renewal process.

The 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.

Read More

Tutor Time Learning Centres

Full Case Name: 1518628 Ontario Inc. v. Tutor Time Learning Centres, LLC (2006)

This court decision is among the most influential Ontario court decisions under the Arthur Wishart Act (Franchise Disclosure), 2000, to date.

In this case, a Tutor Time Learning Centres day care facility was resold from the original franchisee to a new one. The franchisor required the spouse of the purchasing franchisee’s principal to sign the franchise agreement as guarantor.

The disclosure document appeared extensive and included all prescribed requirements, like financial statements, signed certificate, etc. However, it did not contain some important information about operational deficiencies that the day care had with the ministry.

Read More

Sovereignty (Houston Stakes)

Full Case Name: Sovereignty Investment Holdings, Inc. v. 9127-6907 Quebec Inc. (2008)

This is an influential Ontario court decision under the Arthur Wishart Act (Franchise Disclosure), 2000, on the issue of what constitutes a materially deficient disclosure document.

The franchisee purchased a large restaurant in the Vaughan-Mills Shopping Centre that is located in Vaughan. The franchisor was a Quebec franchise startup.

Read More

Quiznos (Site Selection Class Action)

Full Case Name: Al-Harazi v. Quizno’s Canada Restaurant Corporation (2007)

This was the first Ontario class action based on the disclosure requirements in the Arthur Wishart Act (Franchise Disclosure), 2000.

The class was comprised of about 200 franchisees. Each of them entered into a franchise agreement with Quiznos for a franchised restaurant in Ontario.

None of the approximately 200 franchise agreements resulted in the selection of a restaurant location and construction of a franchised restaurant.

Read More

Lick’s Burger (Adlakha v. Meehan)

Full Case Name: Adlakha v. Meehan (2011)

This court decision is among the few Ontario court decisions relating to the enforceability of an arbitration requirement in a franchise agreement. It is the first decision holding that a franchisor’s affiliates, which are not parties to the franchise agreement, may be required to submit to arbitration together with the franchisor – even though they are technically not direct parties to the arbitration agreement.

The franchise agreement contained an arbitration provision, requiring the parties to submit all disputes between them to arbitration.

Read More

341 Pizza (Ahmed)

Full Case Name: Ahmed v. 3 for 1 Pizza & Wings (Canada) Inc. (2004)

This court decision was among the earliest reported franchise disclosure decisions after the passage of Ontario’s franchise legislation, the Arthur Wishart Act (Franchise Disclosure), 2000.

It was the first Ontario decision that defined the term “franchise agreement” to include an agreement between a sub-franchisor and a sub-franchisee, requiring the delivery of a disclosure document.

The franchisor attempted to circumvent the disclosure requirements under the Act by structuring the arrangement as a “management agreement” (rather than a franchise agreement) with a “manager” (rather than a franchisee).

Read More

341 Pizza (Bekah)

Full Case Name: Bekah v. Three for One Pizza (2003)

This court decision was among the earliest reported franchise disclosure decisions after the passage of Ontario’s franchise legislation, the Arthur Wishart Act (Franchise Disclosure), 2000.

It was the first Ontario decision that defined the term “franchise agreement” under the Act to include an agreement of purchase and sale.

The franchisor required that the franchisee purchase the 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.

Read More

Back

Franchise Law Blog

Licensee Gets Summary Judgment for...

Posted by | 25 September 2018

Author: Robert Jones, Law Works P.C. Editor: Ben Hanuka, Law Works P.C. In Fyfe v. Read More

Enforcing Performance Standards in...

Posted by | 15 September 2018

This article, written by Ben Hanuka, was originally published by The Lawyer’s Daily on September 7, 2018. Click here to view the published article. Read More

Court Dismisses Franchisee’s...

Posted by | 5 September 2018

Author: Robert Jones, Law Works P.C. Editor: Ben Hanuka, Law Works P.C. In Azmoon Trading Inc. v. Caffe Demetre Franchising Corp. Read More

View All

What’s New

Globe and Mail cites Ben Hanuk...

In a recent high-profile article on September 13, 2018, titled, “Tim Hortons parent settles with franchisee after locking him out of his restaurants,” the Globe and Mail... Read More

Anthony Pugh Joins Law Works a...

We are pleased to announce that Anthony Pugh, previously Student-at-Law at the firm, joined Law Works as an Associate effective October 1, 2018, upon his call to the Ontario... Read More

Law Works Welcomes New Student...

We are pleased to announce that Peter Radulescu has joined Law Works as a Student-at-Law for the 2018-2019 term. Peter obtained his J.D. and B.Sc. Read More

View All