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
312 Underneath the Golden Boy Therefore, those franchisors coming into Manitoba will either be from the United States or other Canadian jurisdictions. According to Edward N. Levitt, if a franchisor comes to Manitoba from a Canadian jurisdiction with a Canadian disclosure document, a “wrap-around” document for Manitoba makes good business sense. 57 The requirements vary slightly from province to province, so that adding a “wrap-around” clause will not be too costly for the franchisor or confusing to the franchisee reading it. Conversely, there would be a concern that a large and complex disclosure document from a foreign jurisdiction, containing a great deal of inapplicable information for prospective franchisees would not be clear and concise. 58 This, however, may not be the case with a disclosure document from the United States. Currently, most U.S. franchisors use a uniform disclosure format called the Uniform Franchise Offering Circular or UFOC, which will become mandatory in 2008. 59 Thus, in a few years, all franchisors coming from the U.S. will have a UFOC at their disposition. A typical UFOC contains considerably more information than any of its Canadian counterparts. Therefore, a Canadian franchisee will have more information at their disposal when making the decision to purchase. The requirement that “plain English” be used and its standardized format with clear headings will ensure that the document will be clear and concise. 60 Therefore, if Manitoba were to adopt a “wraparound” provision, franchisees would still get a comprehensible disclosure document and franchisors will not have to go through the extra time and expense of composing a new one. In the alternative, although adding a “wrap” will make a document comply with domestic law, the province’s extensive disclosure requirements (whether they emulate Ontario or the ULCC) may require that a franchisor change such a considerable portion of the body of text of the UFOC that it may be easier to create a new one to comply with Manitoba law. 61 The Ontario Superior Court of Justice commented on the use of a UFOC in 1518628 Ontario Inc. v. Tutor 57 Edward N. Levitt, supra note 18. 58 Ibid. 59 Manitoba Law Reform Commission, supra note 13 at 36-37. 60 Peter Macrae Dillon, “The Case for the Use of Wrap-Around Disclosure Documents in Canada,” (Fall 2004) Vol. 24, No. 2 Franchise Law Journal 73 at 76; or online: Siskinds Resources, Articles of Interest at 5. 61 Debi M. Sutin and Arthur J. Trebilcock, “The Case Against the Use of Wrap-Around Disclosure Documents in Canada,” (Fall 2004) Vol. 24, No. 2 Franchise Law Journal 83 at 83.
Response to Consultation Paper on Franchise Law 313 Time Learning Centres LLC. 62 The court noted that the 200-page UFOC did not meet Ontario’s requirements because it did not have to be updated to reflect all material facts as they exist on the date that it is delivered to the prospective franchisee. Not only is it significant that the Superior Court rejected the UFOC as proper disclosure, but also, and primarily in this instance, that the UFOC was a 200-page document. If a wrap-around clause is added to such an extensive document, it is quite possible that it will cease to be as clear and concise as required by law, creating more difficulties for the franchisee. Assuming that the majority of franchisors enter Canada through Ontario, rather than Alberta, they will have to create a “new” disclosure document in compliance with the Arthur Wishart Act (Franchise Disclosure), 2000. 63 Consequently, when that same franchisor comes to Manitoba from Ontario, it will already have in its possession a Canadian disclosure document that will be easily adaptable to meet Manitoba’s requirements. Therefore, compliance by means of a wrap will be accomplished easily, clearly and concisely. To accomplish the clarity requirement while using a wrap, Manitoba’s legislation should demand that franchisors provide both an index and summary of provisions. Doing so will allow franchisees reading the document to not only navigate through it with great ease but also to read the addenda and body together as one. Thus, when a franchisor decides to use a wrap, he will also have to include an index and summary to meet the clarity requirement. The layout of disclosure documents will be discussed later on under the heading “Additional Suggestions.” In conclusion, Manitoba should only adopt a wrap provision if it also adopts the requirement that disclosure documents be clear and concise. This will ensure that franchisees will receive documents that meet the purpose of the Act, that is, to help them make well informed decisions. Moreover, if a franchisor foresees that adding a wrap will not produce a clear document, they will have the option of producing one specific for Manitoba. 64 In addition, Manitoba legislation should enforce the application of indexes and summaries when a wrap is used, allowing the reader to navigate through them with greater ease. At the same time, including a wrap will allow franchisors to enter the province with their 62 [2006] CarswellOnt 4593. 63 Debi M. Sutin and Arthur J. Trebilcock, supra note 59. 64 Edward N. Levitt, “The Prince Edward Island Franchises Act: Canada’s Newest Franchise Statute,” online: Mondaq, Canada: Franchise & Distribution @ Gowlings – November 2006 (to view article, you must become a member of “mondaq” at no cost).
- 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
- Page 311 and 312: Response to Consultation Paper on F
- Page 313 and 314: Response to Consultation Paper on F
- Page 315 and 316: Response to Consultation Paper on F
- Page 317 and 318: Response to Consultation Paper on F
- Page 319 and 320: Response to Consultation Paper on F
- Page 321: Response to Consultation Paper on F
- Page 325 and 326: Response to Consultation Paper on F
- Page 327 and 328: Response to Consultation Paper on F
- Page 329 and 330: Response to Consultation Paper on F
- Page 331 and 332: Response to Consultation Paper on F
- Page 333 and 334: Response to Consultation Paper on F
- Page 335 and 336: Response to Consultation Paper on F
- Page 337 and 338: Response to Consultation Paper on F
- Page 339 and 340: Response to Consultation Paper on F
- Page 341 and 342: Response to Consultation Paper on F
- Page 343 and 344: Response to Consultation Paper on F
- Page 345 and 346: Response to Consultation Paper on F
- Page 347 and 348: Response to Consultation Paper on F
- Page 349 and 350: Response to Consultation Paper on F
- Page 351 and 352: Response to Consultation Paper on F
- Page 353 and 354: Response to Consultation Paper on F
- Page 355 and 356: Response to Consultation Paper on F
- Page 357 and 358: Response to Consultation Paper on F
- Page 359 and 360: Response to Consultation Paper on F
- Page 361 and 362: Response to Consultation Paper on F
- Page 363 and 364: Franchise Legislation and Associati
- Page 365 and 366: Franchise Legislation and Associati
- Page 367 and 368: Franchise Legislation and Associati
- Page 369 and 370: Franchise Legislation and Associati
- Page 371 and 372: Franchise Legislation and Associati
Response to Consultation Paper on Franchise <strong>Law</strong> 313<br />
Time Learning Centres LLC. 62 The court noted that <strong>the</strong> 200-page UFOC did not<br />
meet Ontario’s requirements because it did not have to be updated to reflect all<br />
material facts as <strong>the</strong>y exist on <strong>the</strong> date that it is delivered to <strong>the</strong> prospective<br />
franchisee. Not only is it significant that <strong>the</strong> Superior Court rejected <strong>the</strong> UFOC<br />
as proper disclosure, but also, and primarily in this instance, that <strong>the</strong> UFOC was<br />
a 200-page document. If a wrap-around clause is added to such an extensive<br />
document, it is quite possible that it will cease to be as clear and concise as<br />
required by law, creating more difficulties for <strong>the</strong> franchisee.<br />
Assuming that <strong>the</strong> majority <strong>of</strong> franchisors enter Canada through Ontario,<br />
ra<strong>the</strong>r than Alberta, <strong>the</strong>y will have to create a “new” disclosure document in<br />
compliance with <strong>the</strong> Arthur Wishart Act (Franchise Disclosure), 2000. 63<br />
Consequently, when that same franchisor comes to Manitoba from Ontario, it<br />
will already have in its possession a Canadian disclosure document that will be<br />
easily adaptable to meet Manitoba’s requirements. Therefore, compliance by<br />
means <strong>of</strong> a wrap will be accomplished easily, clearly and concisely.<br />
To accomplish <strong>the</strong> clarity requirement while using a wrap, Manitoba’s<br />
legislation should demand that franchisors provide both an index and summary<br />
<strong>of</strong> provisions. Doing so will allow franchisees reading <strong>the</strong> document to not only<br />
navigate through it with great ease but also to read <strong>the</strong> addenda and body<br />
toge<strong>the</strong>r as one. Thus, when a franchisor decides to use a wrap, he will also have<br />
to include an index and summary to meet <strong>the</strong> clarity requirement. The layout <strong>of</strong><br />
disclosure documents will be discussed later on under <strong>the</strong> heading “Additional<br />
Suggestions.”<br />
In conclusion, Manitoba should only adopt a wrap provision if it also adopts<br />
<strong>the</strong> requirement that disclosure documents be clear and concise. This will ensure<br />
that franchisees will receive documents that meet <strong>the</strong> purpose <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Act, that is,<br />
to help <strong>the</strong>m make well informed decisions. Moreover, if a franchisor foresees<br />
that adding a wrap will not produce a clear document, <strong>the</strong>y will have <strong>the</strong> option<br />
<strong>of</strong> producing one specific for Manitoba. 64 In addition, Manitoba legislation<br />
should enforce <strong>the</strong> application <strong>of</strong> indexes and summaries when a wrap is used,<br />
allowing <strong>the</strong> reader to navigate through <strong>the</strong>m with greater ease. At <strong>the</strong> same<br />
time, including a wrap will allow franchisors to enter <strong>the</strong> province with <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
62<br />
[2006] CarswellOnt 4593.<br />
63<br />
Debi M. Sutin and Arthur J. Trebilcock, supra note 59.<br />
64<br />
Edward N. Levitt, “The Prince Edward Island Franchises Act: Canada’s Newest Franchise<br />
Statute,” online: Mondaq, Canada: Franchise & Distribution @ Gowlings – November 2006<br />
(to view article, you must become a<br />
member <strong>of</strong> “mondaq” at no cost).