- About Us
- Franchise Law
- Business Disputes
- Our Important Court Cases
- What’s New
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).
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice held that the so-called “management agreement” contained the components of a franchise relationship under the Act, and that therefore it was a “franchise agreement” under the definition of the Act; and the “manager” was a “franchisee” under the Act.
As a result, the court held that the franchisor failed to provide to the franchisee a disclosure document, entitling the franchisee to a rescission of the arrangement and compensation for all his losses.Back
On July 4, 2017, the Court of Appeal for Ontario released a decision in Trillium Motor World Ltd. v. Read More
This article, written by Ben Hanuka, was originally published by The Lawyers Daily on July 7, 2017, under the title “Courts struggle for balance with material changes to... Read More
We are pleased to announce that the Globe and Mail sought our firm’s expert opinion about the intensifying fight in the Tim Horton’s franchise. Read More
We are pleased to announce that Rann Wang has joined Law Works P.C. as an articling student. Rann obtained his J.D. from Tulane University Law School in the U.S., and LL. Read More