- 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
Authors: Ben Hanuka and Anthony Pugh, Law Works P.C. Read More
Authors: Ben Hanuka and Robert Jones, Law Works P.C. In 1777453 Alberta Ltd. v. Got Mold Disaster Recovery Services Inc. Read More
We are pleased to announce that the Globe and Mail quoted Ben Hanuka’s opinion about the recent settlement in the Tim Horton’s class action. Read More
We are pleased to announce that the Globe and Mail quoted Ben Hanuka about a proposed settlement of the Tim Hortons pending class action lawsuit. Read More