Underneath the Golden Boy - Robson Hall Faculty of Law

Response to Consultation Paper on Franchise Law 351
name, signature of the franchisor, officer, or authorized agent of the franchisor
and the preparation date of the disclosure document. 188
Manitoba should only follow Australia’s requirement to include a table of
contents. Requiring franchisors to adopt a specific template may be too onerous
for some franchisors coming from foreign jurisdictions and employing a wraparound.
Furthermore, including a table of contents will suffice to make the
disclosure document clear to navigate, accomplishing the goal of franchise
legislation. Thus, Manitoba’s franchise legislation should incorporate the
requirement that disclosure documents include a table of contents with page
numbers.
IV. CONCLUSION
Following a failed attempt to introduce franchise legislation in 1992, Manitoba
once again faces the opportunity to adopt a franchise act. Unlike then, franchise
legislation has become widely accepted in Canada and is currently in force in
Alberta, Ontario, and PEI; New Brunswick has recently completed the first
reading of its own franchise bill. The need for franchise legislation in Manitoba is
clear. With a business population comprised predominantly of franchisees rather
than franchisors, the former must be protected from abuse at the hands of the
latter without unduly impending fair commercial practices. In adopting franchise
legislation, Manitoba ought to consider other Acts in force in Canada together
with the Uniform Law Conference of Canada’s UFA, moulding them into one to
form the most progressive version. This is an opportunity Manitoba cannot
afford to pass.
188
Ibid. at Annexure 1, s. 1.1.