- 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
By: Anthony Pugh, Law Works Editor: Ben Hanuka, Law Works In Spina v. Shoppers Drug Mart Inc. Read More
This article was originally published in The Lawyer’s Daily as a two-part series on August 20, 2020 and August 24, 2020. Read More
We are pleased to announce that Ben Hanuka has been peer-selected for inclusion in the 2021 edition of The Best Lawyers™ in Canada directory in the area of Franchise Law. Read More
The August edition of our Franchise Issue in Focus, a new monthly supplement to our Franchise Law Newsletter, has now been sent out to subscribers of the Franchise Law... Read More