Canada: The Latest Word On Franchising Disclosure Exemptions

Last Updated: March 28 2012
Article by David Shaw, Megan Roberts and Megan Shaw

Franchising is an increasingly attractive business model for many businesses. However, many companies would prefer to avoid the lengthy and costly process required to prepare and continually update the detailed disclosure document that is mandated by Ontario's Arthur Wishart Act (Franchise Disclosure), 2000 (the Act), which must be provided by a franchisor to each prospective franchisee. The need to provide disclosure pursuant to the Act is not, however, an absolute requirement, as the Act provides for certain exemptions from disclosure which, if applicable, eliminate the requirement for that particular franchisor to provide disclosure to a particular franchisee in a given situation. For additional information regarding franchise legislation, disclosure requirements thereunder and disclosure exemptions, please see our March 2012 article: Disclosure Requirements of Ontario's Franchise Legislation and the Rescission Remedy.

Over the past year, two significant decisions have been rendered by the Ontario Court of Appeal regarding the availability of exemptions to franchisors' disclosure obligations under the Act. In addition, a third case addressing disclosure exemptions was recently released by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. These three cases provide valuable insight into the judiciary's current position on the application and availability of disclosure exemptions pursuant to the Act.

Decisions of the Ontario Court of Appeal

In TA&K Enterprises Inc. v. Suncor Energy Products Inc., the Ontario Court of Appeal (the Court) was asked to consider whether Suncor was exempt from providing a disclosure document by virtue of section 5(7)(g)(ii) of the Act, which excuses the franchisor from this requirement where "the franchise agreement is not valid for longer than one year and does not involve the payment of a non-refundable franchise fee."

TA & K Enterprises Inc. (TA&K) was a franchisee that operated a Sunoco gasoline service station. On November 11, 2008, TA&K and Suncor signed a Retail Franchise Agreement (the RFA) with a term of one year starting on November 15, 2008 and ending on November 14, 2009. In October 2009, following the Petro-Canada and Suncor merger, Suncor sent a letter to TA&K informing them that when the RFA expired in November 2009, there would be an extension of the RFA on a month-to-month basis upon the same terms and conditions as the original agreement. On January 12, 2010, Suncor sent another letter to TA&K advising them that the RFA would terminate on August 12, 2010. Subsequently, TA&K commenced a class action alongside other franchisees alleging that Suncor had not provided a disclosure document as required under the Act. In response, Suncor brought a motion for summary judgment seeking to have the action dismissed on the basis that no disclosure document was required.

On the motion for summary judgment, Justice Perell found that the section 5(7)(g)(ii) exemption applied to relieve Suncor of the obligation to provide TA&K with a disclosure document. He made this finding based on the fact that the RFA: (1) was not valid for more than one year; and (2) did not involve the payment of a non-refundable franchise fee.

TA&K appealed the decision, asserting that Suncor did not meet the requirements of section 5(7)(g)(ii) of the Act, as the term of the RFA extended beyond the one-year threshold. They made this argument based on several factors, including:

  • relying on the November 11, 2008 signature date to demonstrate that the agreement covered a period longer than one year;
  • asserting that the extension letter issued by Suncor in October 2009 should be treated as lengthening the term of the initial agreement; and
  • arguing that the survival of certain provisions in the RFA beyond the end of the term of the RFA extended the term of the agreement.

Further, TA&K submitted that the royalty payments made to Suncor over the term of the agreement should be considered to be the payment of franchise fees.

The Court rejected TA&K's arguments and upheld Justice Perell's decision. The panel, comprised of Justices Goudge, MacFarland and Watt, relied on the underlying policy of the exemption and found that disclosure was not required in this circumstance, as the period during which the franchisee would be accepting rights and obligations under the RFA was of a short enough duration that they would be at minimal risk. The Court also found that the October 2009 extension letter would not extend the term beyond the one-year threshold to negate the availability of the exemption, but would instead be considered an additional term that followed the initial term. Moreover, the Court held that the survival of certain provisions, such as indemnity and confidentiality provisions, beyond the termination of the agreement, did not extend the term of the franchise agreement itself as an agreement that has been terminated or expired cannot be considered to be valid. Finally, the Court found that a "franchise fee", a term that is not defined in the Act, "is in the nature of a fee paid for the right to become a franchisee" that would be paid to the franchisor before a franchisee commenced operations and does "not include royalties or payments for goods or services" that a franchisee would pay to the franchisor during the term of the agreement.

In 2189205 Ontario Inc. v. Springdale Pizza Depot Ltd. (Springdale Pizza), the Court's decision, released on June 22, 2011, provides the latest application of section 5(7)(a)(iv) of the Act, which exempts a franchisor from providing a disclosure document upon a resale of a franchise by a franchisee.

In Springdale Pizza, the prospective franchisee approached the franchisor directly regarding the purchase of a franchise. As a result, the franchisor directed the prospective franchisee to an existing Pizza Depot franchise that was available for sale, and the prospective franchisee subsequently purchased the assets of that franchised restaurant. Although the prospective franchisee purchased the franchise directly from the existing franchisee, evidence at trial indicated that all of the parties (including the franchisor) were involved in the negotiations that culminated in the sale of the franchise. In addition, to complete the transaction, the franchisor required the prospective franchisee to sign supplementary documents in order for the franchisor to provide their consent to the transfer. The franchisor did not provide a disclosure document to the new franchisee and, after operating for several months, the new franchisee brought an action for rescission based upon such non-disclosure.

The franchisor relied on sections 5(7)(a)(iv) and 5(8)(a) of the Act and claimed that it was exempt from disclosure obligations upon the resale of the franchise by the franchisee, as the resale was not "effected by or through a franchisor". In contrast, the new franchisee submitted that the franchisor's conduct during the sale, coupled with the franchisor's requirement that the new franchisee sign additional documents, took the franchisor outside the parameters of this exemption. The Court upheld the lower court's decision and found in favour of the new franchisee, holding that the exemption was not available in this case as the franchisor was not merely a passive participant in the resale of the franchise.

The Court found that, given the remedial nature of the Act, the disclosure exemption set out in sections 5(7)(a)(iv) and 5(8) of the Act must be narrowly construed. Moreover, the language used in those provisions only provides an exemption when the franchisor is "not an active participant in bringing about the grant and does nothing more than 'merely' exercise its rights to consent to the transfer" (emphasis added).

The Court held that a number of circumstances, taken together, supported the conclusion that the resale was brought about or caused to happen by or through the franchisor, specifically:

  • the franchisor directed the respondents to this particular purchaser;
  • the franchisor negotiated together with the vendor and the respondent to bring about the sale of the franchised business and the assignment of the franchise;
  • the agreement of purchase and sale required the respondents to obtain the consent of the franchisor and thus deal directly with the franchisor; and
  • the franchisor required execution of documents by the new franchisee that the vendor had not been required to sign.

Note, however, that while the Court found that these factors together amounted to a resale that was "effected by or through the franchisor", they were careful to point out that, on their own, any of these individual circumstances may not have been sufficient to preclude the use of this disclosure exemption. However, on balance, in the case of transfers, the prudent course would be for the franchisor to provide disclosure to the new franchisee on the basis that this disclosure exemption will be narrowly construed and has been found not to be available in certain cases.

Decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Although the case was not decided on the basis of the "additional franchise" disclosure exemption referenced in section 5(7)(c) of the Act, 3574423 Canada Inc. v. Baton Rouge Restaurants Inc. (released on November 14, 2011), provides useful insight into the future application of this exemption given the comments of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (the Superior Court).

3574423 Canada Inc. (the Eaton Centre Franchisee) operated a Baton Rouge Restaurant franchise in the Toronto Eaton Centre starting in 1999. The franchise agreement (the Agreement) between the parties contained a right of first refusal (ROFR), granting the Eaton Centre Franchisee the opportunity to acquire the franchise rights for the second Baton Rouge restaurant planned for the Greater Toronto Area. In 2000, the franchisor offered the Eaton Centre Franchisee a new restaurant opportunity in Thornhill (located just north of Toronto). However, that opportunity lapsed when the landlord cancelled the offer to lease for that property. Two subsequent opportunities were offered, but in each case the Eaton Centre Franchisee declined such opportunity and the Agreement was amended, by the signing of a waiver, to extend the ROFR to the next location planned for the Greater Toronto Area.

In 2001, the Thornhill restaurant opportunity returned. Again, the Eaton Centre Franchisee drafted and signed a waiver which indicated that they declined this particular opportunity, but wished to preserve their ROFR for future opportunities. However, at this time, the franchisor indicated that there would be no further extension of the ROFR. In 2004, another franchise became available in the designated area and the Eaton Centre Franchisee was not offered the ROFR with respect to such location.

The Eaton Centre Franchisee brought a claim against the franchisor under the Act on two grounds: (1) breach of the duty of fair dealing; and (2) breach of disclosure obligations which the franchisee alleged arose when the Thornhill opportunity was presented for the second time. Given that the Act was not in force at the time the original Agreement was entered into, the key issue at trial was whether the disclosure requirements under the Act applied to the franchisor's 2001 offer to the Eaton Centre Franchisee relating to the revived Thornhill location in accordance with the ROFR. The Eaton Centre Franchisee submitted that the Act's disclosure requirements applied for several reasons including:

  • the franchisor's "invitation" to the Eaton Centre Franchisee to accept the Thornhill location combined with the executed waiver document formed a "franchise agreement" pursuant to the Act;
  • the Eaton Centre Franchisee was a prospective franchisee with respect to the "next" restaurant and was consequently entitled to receive the required disclosure document when the franchisor notified the Eaton Centre Franchisee of the revived Thornhill location;
  • the 2001 waiver signed by the Eaton Centre Franchisee as a prospective franchisee was a "franchise agreement or any other agreement relating to the franchise" within the meaning of section 5(1)(a) of the Act; and
  • section 5(1)(a) of the Act (the disclosure requirement) applied even though, in the end, the Eaton Centre Franchisee did not become the franchisee for the Thornhill location.

The Superior Court rejected the Eaton Centre Franchisee's claim pertaining to the franchisor's alleged breach of disclosure requirements under the Act and held that the 2001 waiver was not a franchise agreement between the parties or "any other agreement relating to the franchise" as defined in the Act. Consequently, since there was no agreement, the Eaton Centre Franchisee was not entitled to the remedies afforded by the Act. The Superior Court stated that "section 5 disclosure requirements are linked to very specific acts – the signing of a franchise agreement or 'any other agreement relating to the franchise' and the payment of consideration." Put another way, though section 5(1) requires disclosure be made to a prospective franchisee, the Superior Court held that the Act only affords remedies for the breach of such requirements to prospective franchisees that become actual franchisees.

The Superior Court also took the opportunity to clarify that the phrase "any other agreement relating to the franchise" in section 5(1) of the Act refers to ancillary documents signed by a franchisee in connection with entering into a franchise agreement. Simply put, the phrase pertains solely to an agreement signed by a franchisor and an actual franchisee and would not capture a document entered into by a prospective franchisee that does not became an actual franchisee.

In obiter (meaning that such comments reflect the judge's opinion and are not regarded as binding or decisive), the Superior Court opined on the application of section 5(7)(c) of the Act to the case. Section 5(7)(c) of the Act relieves the franchisor from the duty to disclose to an existing franchisee if: (1) the additional franchise is substantially the same as the existing franchise operated by the franchisee; and (2) there has been no material change since the existing franchise agreement, latest renewal or extension was entered into.

Since no case law on the application of section 5(7)(c) existed, the Superior Court considered cases that discussed the "renewal exemption" in section 5(7)(f) of the Act and the "no longer than one year exemption" in section 5(7)(g)(ii) of the Act. Upon reviewing such case law, the Superior Court came to the conclusion that the exemptions reflect a legislative view that "where the franchisee is already familiar with the operations of the franchise system and the risk of making a further investment of funds is low, no need for the full disclosure requirements of section 5 exist." In other words, the asymmetry of information that often exists between a franchisee and franchisor is considerably reduced by the franchisee's knowledge and experience regarding the operation of its current franchise, significantly curtailing the need for disclosure and no longer aligning with the policy rationale behind the Act's disclosure requirement.

The Superior Court applied this view to the "additional franchise exemption" and held that the difference in the size of territories was not a material difference as it did not affect the operational or financial relationship between the parties. Further, the fact that the Thornhill franchise agreement did not contain a ROFR did not make the two locations substantially different in terms of their operation or prudency of investment. As such, the Superior Court held there was no material change to the Agreement and, moreover, the additional franchise would have been substantially similar to that already operated by the Eaton Centre Franchisee. In the result, if needed, the franchisor could have relied on the application of the exemption found in section 5(7)(c) of the Act in support of the fact that the franchisor was not obligated to provide disclosure to the Eaton Centre Franchisee in this case.

Conclusion

Franchisors and franchisees alike should take note of the decisions in the Suncor, Springdale Pizza and Baton Rouge cases as they provide useful insight into the courts' continuing journey to protect the interests of franchisees and balance the rights of franchisors and franchisees under the Act. While the Springdale Pizza decision confirms the commonly held view among franchise practitioners that it is prudent to disclose to prospective franchisees on franchise re-sales, both the Suncor case and the Baton Rouge case evidence the courts' willingness to confirm the availability of the Act's disclosure exemptions in situations where franchisees have sufficient information to make an informed investment decision or sufficiently limited risk that such potential franchisees do not require the protection of the Act.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Events from this Firm
30 Oct 2019, Other, Toronto, Canada

The materials on the Blakes Business Class website are provided for informational purposes only. Accessing this information does not create a lawyer-client relationship.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
 
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions