|
Franchise - Interpretation. 2189205 Ontario Inc. v. Springdale Pizza Depot Ltd.
In 2189205 Ontario Inc. v. Springdale Pizza Depot Ltd. (Ont CA, 2011) the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal, here brought against orders "granting partial summary judgment, declaring that the Franchise Agreement documents were validly rescinded and that the franchisor is liable to pay damages required by s. 6(6) of the Act".
Here the court considers interpretation of the AWAFD:[23] In Salah v. Timothy’s Coffees of the World Inc. (2010), 2010 ONCA 673 (CanLII), 268 O.A.C. 279 (C.A.), at para. 26, Winkler C.J.O. observed:The Wishart Act is sui generis remedial legislation. It deserves a broad and generous interpretation. The purpose of the statue is clear: it is intended to redress the imbalance of power as between franchisor and franchisee; it is also intended to provide a remedy for abuses stemming from this imbalance. [24] The franchisor has all the information and dictates the terms of the agreement. In this context, disclosure is intended to provide a prospective and often inexperienced franchisee with sufficient and readily accessible information to make informed decisions. The remedies for failure to comply with the strict disclosure requirements are also intended to remedy abuses by franchisors. As noted by MacFarland J.A., in 1490664 Ontario Ltd. v. Dig This Garden Retailers Ltd. (2005), 2005 CanLII 25181 (ON CA), 256 D.L.R. (4th) 451 (C.A.), at para. 12, it “is evident that the thrust of the Act is to set standards for adequate disclosure and to create significant penalties for failing to meet those standards.”
|
