Leading Canadian
FRANCHISE & BUSINESS LAW FIRM

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.

After starting to operate the franchised day care, the new franchisee encountered problems and asked for the franchisor’s financial assistance. The franchisor agreed to provide financial assistance on condition of the franchisee sign a settlement agreement releasing the franchisor of any past claims. After consulting a transactional lawyer, the franchisee agreed and signed the settlement agreement and release.

Later, the franchisee started this case to cancel (rescind) its purchase of the franchise, and receive compensation for its losses. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice held as follows, for the first:

  • The franchisor was not exempt from the resale exemption in the Act because it “effected” the sale by requiring the spouse of the corporate franchisee’s principal to sign as guarantor. This requirement was in addition to the resale conditions in the franchise agreement, which required only that the principal (not the principal’s spouse) sign as guarantor.
  • The franchisor failed to provide adequate disclosure document because it did not disclose information about ministry deficiencies concerning the daycare centre’s operations.
  • However, the franchisee was not entitled to rescission because it had earlier signed a settlement and release in favour of the franchisor. The no-waiver provision in section 11 of the Act did not apply because the agreement that the settlement agreement was not a mere “release”, but rather a “settlement” with consideration. In addition, the franchisee had legal advice when signing the settlement.

The decision was made by a senior judge of the Ontario court, sitting on the specialized Commercial List, Mr. Justice Cumming (now retired), a former law professor at Osgoode Hall Law School.

Procedurally, this was the first franchise rescission case where a court held important substantive issues under the Act without a trial – through a motion for summary judgment.

More importantly, the decision has played a pivotal role in shaping, and continuing to shape, these multitude fundamental aspects of Ontario franchise disclosure law:

  • How lawyers and courts interpret complex issues of whether a particular release is part of a valid settlement or invalid under the no-waiver provision in section 11 of the Act.
  • What constitutes a ‘material fact’ that renders a disclosure document inoperative.
  • When a franchisor ‘effects’ a resale transaction and, as a result, is disqualified from the resale exemption in the Act.
  • When an additional party, such as a guarantor, is entitled to receive a separate disclosure document.
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