Canadian Appeals Monitor Information and Commentary on Upcoming and Recent Appeal Court Decisions

Category Archives: Franchise and Distribution

Subscribe to Franchise and Distribution RSS Feed

Dunkin’ Donuts: The Supreme Court of Canada puts an end to the saga

Posted in Case Comments, Civil Litigation, Franchise and Distribution

A recent article published on McCarthy Tétrault LLP’s Consumer and Retail Advisor blog may be of interest to readers of the Canadian Appeals Monitor blog. Adam Ship, Anne-Marie Naud and Helen Fotinos recently published an update to their previous discussion about the Québec Court of Appeal’s decision in Dunkin’ Brands Canada Ltd. c. Bertico inc., 2015 QCCA 624, in particular its finding of implied obligations in franchise agreements. The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) just announced their dismissal of Dunkin’ Brands Canada Ltd.’s application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal. Notably, in … Continue Reading

Cook or Get Out of the Kitchen: Legitimate Interest Required to Enforce a Restrictive Covenant

Posted in Case Comments, Civil Litigation, Franchise and Distribution

MEDIchair LP v DME Medeqip Inc., 2016 ONCA 168 is a case with important implications for all franchisors and franchisees. In the decision released on February 29, 2016, the Ontario Court of Appeal struck down a non-competition covenant because the franchisor had no intention of operating a competing business within the geographical area covered by the covenant.  Overturning the lower court decision, the Court of Appeal held that a legitimate proprietary interest is necessary to enforce a restrictive covenant.… Continue Reading

Ontario Court of Appeal Dismisses Pet Valu Class Action, Clarifies the Scope of the Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing and Calls for Greater Judicial Restraint

Posted in Case Comments, Civil Litigation, Class Actions, Franchise and Distribution

The recent decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in 1250264 Ontario Inc. v. Pet Valu Canada Inc., 2016 ONCA 24 clarifies and narrows the scope of the duty of good faith and fair dealing imposed on franchisors under section 3 of the Arthur Wishart Act (Franchise Disclosure) (“AWA”) and expressly cautions against zealous judicial intervention in the framing and amendment of common issues in class action proceedings.… Continue Reading

The Ontario Court of Appeal Finds Franchise Disclosure Document Fatally Deficient

Posted in Case Comments, Franchise and Distribution

On McCarthy Tétrault LLP’s Consumer & Retail Advisor blog, Helen Fotinos, Sam Khajeei and Adam Ship recently published a helpful discussion of the Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision in 2240802 Ontario Inc. v Springdale Pizza Depot Ltd., which will be of interest to readers of the Canadian Appeals Monitor.… Continue Reading

Ontario Court of Appeal refuses to read down or sever general release clause in franchise agreement

Posted in Case Comments, Franchise and Distribution

The following post by Brooke MacKenzie on our Consumer & Retail Advisor Blog may be of interest to our readers: Ontario Court of Appeal refuses to read down or sever general release clause in franchise agreement

This post addresses the Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision in 2176693 Ontario Ltd. v. Cora Franchise Group Inc, 2015 ONCA 152, upholding a decision striking down a general release clause in a franchise agreement on the basis of section 11 of the Arthur Wishart Act (Franchise Disclosure), 2000, SO 2000, c 3, which provides that any purported release of a franchisee’s statutory … Continue Reading

Ontario Court of Appeal Again Narrowly Interprets the Resale Exemption in Ontario’s Franchise Legislation

Posted in Case Comments, Franchise and Distribution

The following post by Adam Ship and Brooke MacKenzie on our Consumer & Retail Advisor Blog may be of interest to our readers: Ontario Court of Appeal Again Narrowly Interprets the Resale Exemption in Ontario’s Franchise Legislation.

The post addresses the Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision in 2147191 Ontario Inc. v. Springdale Pizza Depot Ltd., 2015 ONCA 116, upholding a finding on summary judgment that a franchisor could not rely on the “resale exemption” from the disclosure requirements found in Ontario’s franchise legislation, the Arthur Wishart Act (Franchise Disclosure), 2000, SO 2000, c 3.… Continue Reading

Hot Off the Press – World Class Actions: A Guide to Group and Representative Actions Around the Globe

Posted in Aboriginal, Class Actions, Communications, Construction and Real Estate, Energy, Financial Services, Franchise and Distribution, Health, Insurance, Media, Municipal, Procedure, Professions, Securities, Transportation

In the newly published World Class Actions: A Guide to Group and Representative Actions Around the Globe, McCarthy Tétrault litigators David Hamer and Shane D’Souza co-authored the “Multijurisdictional and Transnational Class Litigation: Lawsuits Heard ‘Round the World” chapter. The chapter offers guidance to international lawyers who represent clients involved in cross-border, multinational and international class actions.

World Class Actions is a practical guide for lawyers, clients, legal support professionals, academics, policymakers and judges on the procedures available for class, group and representative actions internationally. Each chapter is written by a local attorney familiar with the laws, best practices, legal … Continue Reading

The Court of Appeal Clarifies Interplay Between the Limitations Act, 2002 and the Arthur Wishart Act (Franchise Disclosure), 2000

Posted in Case Comments, Franchise and Distribution

In 2130489 Ontario Inc. v. Philthy McNasty’s (Enterprises) Inc., the Ontario Court of Appeal (ONCA) clarified how the limitation period in the Limitations Act, 2002 (Limitations Act) interacts with the time periods for rescission set out in the Arthur Wishart Act (Franchise Disclosure), 2000 (Act).

According to the Court, where a franchisee seeks access to the courts to enforce its statutory rescission rights under the Act, the general two-year limitation period set out in the Limitations Act will only be triggered once the franchisee “discovers” that the franchisor does not intend to comply with the financial obligations set … Continue Reading