In 2352392 Ontario Inc. v. Msi, 2020 ONCA 237 (“Msi”), the Ontario Court of Appeal delivered a significant decision that will impact the application of Section 6(3) of the Arthur Wishart Act (Franchise Disclosure), 2000, S.O. 2000 c. 3 (the “Act”) (the “Notice of Rescission” section). The decision, technically read, allows court pleadings, (properly pled), to constitute a valid notice of rescission under the Act. However, the principles applied by the Court of Appeal shed light, more broadly, on a new level for how the Act will be interpreted in favor of franchisees: that is, by removing barriers to enforcement of franchisee rights, especially if it involves “form over substance”.
The basic facts surrounding the underlying case are common. A franchisee purchased a franchise that did not end up being financially successful. As a consequence, the franchisee’s bank sued the franchisee for defaulting on its loan. In turn, the franchisee issued a third party claim against the franchisor claiming damages and rescission of the franchise agreement for failure to provide a disclosure document as required by the Act. The franchisor defended the rescission claim by arguing that the franchisee had not delivered a notice of rescission as required under Section 6(3) of the Act. After the third party claim was issued and the franchisor defended, the franchisee sued his former lawyer who had issued the third party claim, alleging that the lawyer was negligent in failing to comply with the requirements of the Act in connection with the delivery of the notice of rescission.
At the initial motion, which dealt with both actions, both the franchisor and the franchisee argued that the third party claim did not constitute a proper notice of rescission under the Act. The motion judge accepted the franchisor and the franchisee’s arguments and the franchisee’s former lawyer appealed. The motion judge’s decision turned entirely on the Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision in 2130489 Inc. v. Philthy McNasty’s (Enterprises) Inc., 2012 ONCA 381 (“Philthy’s”), which has long been cited for the proposition that a pleading cannot constitute a notice of rescission under the Act.