Leading Canadian
FRANCHISE & BUSINESS LAW FIRM

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.

After the parties signed the purchase and sale agreement – before the purchase transaction closed and before the full franchise agreement was signed – the purchaser discovered problems with the franchise. He asked to cancel (rescind) the purchase and get his purchase money back.

The franchisor objected and took the position that the buyer was required to first close the purchase transaction, sign the franchise agreement, and only then attempt to rescind the purchase.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice agreed with the purchaser. It held that the purchase and sale agreement was a “franchise agreement” under the meaning of the Act, and that the purchaser was entitled to rescind the purchase without having to close the transaction and without signing the full franchise agreement.

This court decision was very influential in the early years of the development of franchise disclosure law in Ontario. The case had a significant impact on how franchise lawyers and franchisors structured sale and resale transactions – by making sure that franchisors provide a fulsome disclosure package before the parties sign any binding agreement relating to the sale, even an agreement of purchase and sale.

Back

Franchise Law Blog

Ontario Court Enforces Costs Award...

Posted by | 25 November 2018

Author: Robert Jones, Law Works P.C. Editor: Ben Hanuka, Law Works P.C. In Pet Valu Canada Inc. v. Read More

Court Dismisses Injunction Applications...

Posted by | 20 November 2018

Author: Robert Jones, Law Works P.C. Editor: Ben Hanuka, Law Works P.C. In 526901 B.C. Ltd. v. Dairy Queen Canada Inc. Read More

Quebec Court Certifies Franchise Class...

Posted by | 15 November 2018

Author: Robert Jones, Law Works P.C. Editor: Ben Hanuka, Law Works P.C. In Sopropharm c. Jean-Coutu Group (PJC) Inc. Read More

View All

What’s New

Ben Hanuka Authors Franchise A...

We are pleased to announce that the Canadian Arbitration and Mediation Journal will publish in its upcoming issue a paper authored by Ben Hanuka about franchise arbitrations. Read More

Ben Hanuka Co-Presented about ...

We are pleased to announce that Ben Hanuka co-presented about 2018 case developments at the recent Annual Franchise Law Conference of the Ontario Bar Association, which was... Read More

Ben Hanuka Cited in Ongoing Ti...

We are pleased to announce that the Globe and Mail cited Ben Hanuka’s opinion in another high-profile article about the ongoing Tim Horton’s class actions. Read More

View All