Underneath the Golden Boy - Robson Hall Faculty of Law
Underneath the Golden Boy - Robson Hall Faculty of Law Underneath the Golden Boy - Robson Hall Faculty of Law
250 Underneath the Golden Boy The 1995 Act represented a significant departure in approach, and eliminated the oversight by the Alberta Securities Commission and the relationship standards enforced by Commission policy. The Act is a disclosure statute, and requires franchisors to provide a specified level of financial and other material fact disclosure to prospective franchisees, but does not require franchisor registration or document filing. The Act also includes provisions governing the franchise relationship, imposing a duty of fair dealing and protecting the freedom of franchisees to associate, and provides remedies for breaches of the legislation. As well, the Act includes provisions for selfgovernment, which had been strongly supported by the Canadian Franchise Association 79 - the Lieutenant Governor in Council may designate one or more bodies to govern franchising and to promote fair dealing among franchisors and franchisees. However, a self-governing body has not been designated. 2. Ontario Arthur Wishart Act (Franchise Disclosure) 2000 Ontario became the second Canadian jurisdiction to enact franchise legislation, the Arthur Wishart Act (Franchise Disclosure) 2000, 80 in 2000. The Act is named for the former Ontario Minister of Financial and Commercial Affairs, who established the first public inquiry into franchising in Canada in 1971. The resulting Grange Report had called for franchise legislation along the lines of the early Alberta Act, with a Franchise Bureau and Registrar. 81 Franchising disputes were brought to public attention in Ontario in the early 1990s, when media reports highlighted the litigation between the Pizza Pizza organization and a large number of its franchisees, who said that they were subjected to an arbitrary cost structure and ‘feudal-style’ management. 82 In 1994, the Ontario Government announced the formation of a Franchise Sector Working Team, comprising representatives of franchisors, franchisees, and government, to make recommendations on franchise regulation. The Team recommended that the Ontario Government enact legislation generally similar to the 1995 Alberta Act, although the franchisee representatives preferred to include additional provisions governing the franchise relationship. The Team 79 Zaid, supra note 1 at 2-118II. 80 Arthur Wishart Act (Franchise Disclosure), 2000, S.O. 2000, c. 3 [Ontario Act]. 81 S.G.M. Grange, Report of the Minister’s Committee on Referral Sales, Multi-Level Sales and Franchises, Ontario Ministry of Financial and Commercial Affairs (1971). 82 887574 Ontario Inc. v. Pizza Pizza Ltd. (1995), 23 B.L.R (2d) 259 (Ont. Ct. Gen. Div.), leave to appeal refused [1995] O.J. No. 1645 (Ont. C.A.); 887574 Ontario Inc. v. Pizza Pizza Ltd. (1994), 23 B.L.R. (2d) 239 (Ont. Ct. Gen. Div.); 887574 Ontario Inc. v. Pizza Pizza Ltd. (1995), 23 B.L.R. (2d) 250 (Ont. Ct. Gen. Div.); J. Lorinc, Opportunity Knocks: The Truth About Canada’s Franchise Industry (1995) at 169-205; C. French, “Disputes hurt franchising’s image”, The Globe and Mail (November 24, 1994) and Dillon, supra note 7 at 4.
Franchise Law Consultation Paper 2007 251 recommended that alternate forms of resolving franchise disputes to litigation be explored and adopted, and that the Ontario Government carry out wide consultations and explore how national harmonized regulatory standards might be pursued. 83 In 1998, the Ontario Government released a Consultation Paper on franchise legislation, 84 and in 1999, a bill was introduced, 85 along with a private member’s bill dealing with franchising. 86 Several franchisees, franchisors and commentators made submissions at the public hearings that followed. 87 Among the heavily debated topics were the power imbalance between franchisors and franchisees, the restrictions placed on franchisees for the sourcing of products and services, the need for provisions for alternative dispute resolution, and the issue of good faith and fair dealing. 88 The Ontario Act is a disclosure statute based largely on the 1995 Alberta Act, and similarly provides for a duty of fair dealing and the right to associate. 89 The Act does not include an alternative dispute resolution mechanism. 3. Uniform Law Conference of Canada Uniform Franchises Act The Uniform Law Conference of Canada (“the ULCC”) had considered the issue of franchise regulation from time to time from the 1980s. 90 In June 2002, the ULCC established a working committee formed of franchise lawyers and industry and government representatives to develop uniform franchise 83 Franchise Sector Working Team Report (August 30, 1995) in Zaid, supra note 1 at 2-142J- 142Z.4. 84 Ontario Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, Ontario Franchise Disclosure Legislation – Vision (Consultation Paper, June 1998), online: (date accessed: May 8, 2007). 85 Bill 33, Arthur Wishart Act (Franchise Disclosure), 2000, 37 th Legislature, 1 st Session, Ontario,1999-2001, background material online: http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/bills/bills_detail.dolocale=en&BillID=740&isCurrent=false&Pa rlSessionID=37%3A1 (date accessed: May 8, 2007). 86 Bill 35, Franchises Act, 37 th Legislature, 1 st Session, Ontario, 1999-2001, online: http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/bills/bills_detail.dolocale=en&BillID=749&isCurrent=false&Pa rlSessionID=37%3A1> (date accessed: May 8, 2007). 87 Ontario Legislative Assembly, Standing Committee on Regulations and Private Bills, Hansard (March 7-9, 2000: Hearing on Bill 33: Franchise Disclosure Act, 1999), online: (date accessed: May 8, 2007). 88 Ibid.; see also D.F. So, Canadian Franchise Law Handbook (2005) at 24-26. 89 See also O.Reg. 581/00 [Ontario regulations]. 90 Zaid, supra note 5 at 35.
- Page 209 and 210: The Employment Standards Code Amend
- Page 211 and 212: The Employment Standards Code Amend
- Page 213 and 214: The Employment Standards Code Amend
- Page 215 and 216: The Employment Standards Code Amend
- Page 217 and 218: The Employment Standards Code Amend
- Page 219 and 220: The Employment Standards Code Amend
- Page 221 and 222: The Registered Retirement Savings P
- Page 223 and 224: The Registreed Retirement Savings P
- Page 225 and 226: The Registreed Retirement Savings P
- Page 227 and 228: The Registreed Retirement Savings P
- Page 229 and 230: The Registreed Retirement Savings P
- Page 231 and 232: The Registreed Retirement Savings P
- Page 233 and 234: The Registreed Retirement Savings P
- Page 235 and 236: The Registreed Retirement Savings P
- Page 237 and 238: The Registreed Retirement Savings P
- Page 239 and 240: 2008 Franchise Law Symposium W ith
- Page 241 and 242: Franchise Law: Consultation Paper 2
- Page 243 and 244: Franchise Law Consultation Paper 20
- Page 245 and 246: Franchise Law Consultation Paper 20
- Page 247 and 248: Franchise Law Consultation Paper 20
- Page 249 and 250: Franchise Law Consultation Paper 20
- Page 251 and 252: F. The Franchise Legal Relationship
- Page 253 and 254: Franchise Law Consultation Paper 20
- Page 255 and 256: Franchise Law Consultation Paper 20
- Page 257 and 258: Franchise Law Consultation Paper 20
- Page 259: Franchise Law Consultation Paper 20
- Page 263 and 264: Franchise Law Consultation Paper 20
- Page 265 and 266: Franchise Law Consultation Paper 20
- Page 267 and 268: Franchise Law Consultation Paper 20
- Page 269 and 270: Franchise Law Consultation Paper 20
- Page 271 and 272: Franchise Law Consultation Paper 20
- Page 273 and 274: Franchise Law Consultation Paper 20
- Page 275 and 276: Franchise Law Consultation Paper 20
- Page 277 and 278: Franchise Law Consultation Paper 20
- Page 279 and 280: Franchise Law Consultation Paper 20
- Page 281 and 282: Franchise Law Consultation Paper 20
- Page 283 and 284: Franchise Law Consultation Paper 20
- Page 285 and 286: Franchise Law Consultation Paper 20
- Page 287 and 288: Franchise Law Consultation Paper 20
- Page 289 and 290: Franchise Law Consultation Paper 20
- Page 291 and 292: Franchise Law Consultation Paper 20
- Page 293 and 294: Franchise Law Consultation Paper 20
- Page 295 and 296: Franchise Law Consultation Paper 20
- Page 297 and 298: Franchise Law Consultation Paper 20
- Page 299 and 300: Franchise Law Consultation Paper 20
- Page 301 and 302: Franchise Law Consultation Paper 20
- Page 303 and 304: Franchise Law Consultation Paper 20
- Page 305 and 306: Response to Consultation Paper on F
- Page 307 and 308: Response to Consultation Paper on F
- Page 309 and 310: Response to Consultation Paper on F
Franchise <strong>Law</strong> Consultation Paper 2007 251<br />
recommended that alternate forms <strong>of</strong> resolving franchise disputes to litigation be<br />
explored and adopted, and that <strong>the</strong> Ontario Government carry out wide<br />
consultations and explore how national harmonized regulatory standards might<br />
be pursued. 83<br />
In 1998, <strong>the</strong> Ontario Government released a Consultation Paper on<br />
franchise legislation, 84 and in 1999, a bill was introduced, 85 along with a private<br />
member’s bill dealing with franchising. 86 Several franchisees, franchisors and<br />
commentators made submissions at <strong>the</strong> public hearings that followed. 87 Among<br />
<strong>the</strong> heavily debated topics were <strong>the</strong> power imbalance between franchisors and<br />
franchisees, <strong>the</strong> restrictions placed on franchisees for <strong>the</strong> sourcing <strong>of</strong> products<br />
and services, <strong>the</strong> need for provisions for alternative dispute resolution, and <strong>the</strong><br />
issue <strong>of</strong> good faith and fair dealing. 88<br />
The Ontario Act is a disclosure statute based largely on <strong>the</strong> 1995 Alberta<br />
Act, and similarly provides for a duty <strong>of</strong> fair dealing and <strong>the</strong> right to associate. 89<br />
The Act does not include an alternative dispute resolution mechanism.<br />
3. Uniform <strong>Law</strong> Conference <strong>of</strong> Canada Uniform Franchises Act<br />
The Uniform <strong>Law</strong> Conference <strong>of</strong> Canada (“<strong>the</strong> ULCC”) had considered <strong>the</strong><br />
issue <strong>of</strong> franchise regulation from time to time from <strong>the</strong> 1980s. 90 In June 2002,<br />
<strong>the</strong> ULCC established a working committee formed <strong>of</strong> franchise lawyers and<br />
industry and government representatives to develop uniform franchise<br />
83<br />
Franchise Sector Working Team Report (August 30, 1995) in Zaid, supra note 1 at 2-142J-<br />
142Z.4.<br />
84<br />
Ontario Ministry <strong>of</strong> Consumer and Commercial Relations, Ontario Franchise Disclosure<br />
Legislation – Vision (Consultation Paper, June 1998), online:<br />
<br />
(date accessed: May 8, 2007).<br />
85<br />
Bill 33, Arthur Wishart Act (Franchise Disclosure), 2000, 37 th Legislature, 1 st Session,<br />
Ontario,1999-2001, background material online:<br />
http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/bills/bills_detail.dolocale=en&BillID=740&isCurrent=false&Pa<br />
rlSessionID=37%3A1 (date accessed: May 8, 2007).<br />
86<br />
Bill 35, Franchises Act, 37 th Legislature, 1 st Session, Ontario, 1999-2001, online:<br />
http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/bills/bills_detail.dolocale=en&BillID=749&isCurrent=false&Pa<br />
rlSessionID=37%3A1> (date accessed: May 8, 2007).<br />
87<br />
Ontario Legislative Assembly, Standing Committee on Regulations and Private Bills, Hansard<br />
(March 7-9, 2000: Hearing on Bill 33: Franchise Disclosure Act, 1999), online:<br />
(date accessed: May 8, 2007).<br />
88<br />
Ibid.; see also D.F. So, Canadian Franchise <strong>Law</strong> Handbook (2005) at 24-26.<br />
89<br />
See also O.Reg. 581/00 [Ontario regulations].<br />
90<br />
Zaid, supra note 5 at 35.