Articles 2021

Determining the scope of "all material facts" that must be disclosed to franchisees is a key part of the continuing evolution of franchise law in Canada. This article provides important insights on two recent cases dealing with location-specific disclosure requirements, and sets out a helpful overview of how the law has developed in this area.

A recent British Columbia Supreme Court decision provided the Court the first opportunity to interpret and apply certain sections of the relatively recently enacted BC Franchises Act. This article details the analysis and precedential value of the decision for the scope and application of s. 12 of the BC Act, as well as outlining the Court's in depth consideration of defining the franchise relationship.

Can the franchisor-franchisee relationship create a conspiracy? In its decision Pearce v. 4 Pillars Consulting Group Inc., the B.C. Court of Appeal upheld the lower court's decision to certify a number of claims, including civil conspiracy, in a class proceeding against both franchisee and franchisor defendants. This article highlights the outcome of the decision and considers potential consequences and considerations for franchise systems.

A recent Ontario case considered the test for determining whether deficiencies in a disclosure document are so material so as to amount to no disclosure at all, thereby permitting rescission within two years under section 6(2) of Ontario's Arthur Wishart Act. The decision notes that the test, which considers whether the deficiencies impair the ability of a franchisee to make an informed decision, is an objective one, but which must account for the particular facts of each case.

The Supreme Court of Canada's two recent decisions in C.M. Callow Inc. and Wastech Services Ltd. revisited and clarified the principles of good faith contractual performance formulated in Bhasin. While it remains to be determined whether the common law duty of good faith is different from the franchise-specific duty of good faith and fair dealing, these general principles of contract law have important implications for parties to the franchise relationship.

The recent decision of the Alberta Court of Appeal in 1777453 Alberta Ltd. v. Got Mold Disaster Recovery Services Inc. provides important insight into the calculation of net loss damages upon the termination of the Franchisee-Franchisor relationship. This article provides a brief of the case and analysis of how the Court clarified damages from a net loss perspective, along with other issues.

When the franchise relationship comes to an end, ensuring dissociation from the franchisor while continuing on with business can present challenges. In this case the Court dealt with a dispute as to whether there had been dissociation per the parties' agreement, and provides guidance on what constitutes commercially reasonable efforts.

Penalty and liquidated damages clauses may seem like an attractive option in the contractual legal toolkit for franchise agreements. However, there are potential drawbacks and drafting considerations to keep in mind. This article provides an overview of these clauses, their benefits, and thoughts on their utility in the franchise context.

The Supreme Court's recent decision in 1688782 Ontario Inc. v. Maple Leaf Foods defines a supplier's scope of duty of care for pure economic loss and speaks to the nature of the franchise relationship.

Long-awaited amendments to Ontario's Arthur Wishart Act have now come into force. This article highlights the new amendments and provides insight into their interpretation and potential impact.