A recent decision on a motion for summary judgment in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice may have filled a possible gap in the definitional provisions of the Arthur Wishart (Franchise Disclosure) Act 2000, which governs franchise pre-sale disclosure and remedies for non-compliance, despite the court's insistence that no such gap existed.
The Ontario Court of Appeal has held that there is a common law duty upon a franchisor to display good faith to each of its franchisees in performance and enforcement of every franchise agreement. Although such a duty in franchise relationships is well known to exist in the United States, it was not entirely clear whether it applied to such relationships in Canada.
A recent case illustrates the extent of the duty of good faith apparently owed by a franchisor to its franchisees. It further demonstrates that some judges will extend responsibility for negligent misrepresentation to cases where the 'representer' has no direct dealings with the injured person, if it could reasonably be expected that that person would place reliance on what was seen or heard.
Including: Why Canada?; Planning Principles; 'Canadapting' Franchise Documentation; Alberta Franchises Act; Ontario Franchise Legislation.