Jill Marie Knudsen

In a proposed class proceeding brought by franchisees against a franchisor and alleged franchisor’s associates, the defendants moved under Rules 21.01(b), 25.06, and 25.11 to strike portions of the amended statement of claim.

The claims alleged failures to provide proper disclosure documents under franchise legislation, breaches of the statutory duty of fair dealing, unlawful conversion of exclusive territories to non‑exclusive territories, interference with franchisees’ right to associate, and entitlement to injunctive relief and rescission.

The court held that although the pleading was lengthy and complex, it adequately disclosed material facts and gave sufficient notice of the case the defendants had to meet.

Many of the defendants’ objections were found to raise substantive defences or merits issues better addressed in a statement of defence, summary judgment motion, or at trial rather than on a pleadings motion.

The court concluded that the defendants had not established a basis to strike the impugned paragraphs.

In a proposed class proceeding arising from a vending machine distributorship program, the plaintiffs alleged misrepresentation and sought rescission and damages under the Arthur Wishart Act (Franchise Disclosure), 2000.

A supplier of nut products brought a motion for summary judgment arguing it was neither a partner nor a “franchisor’s associate” of the program’s operator.

The court held the documentary record showed the supplier merely licensed trademarks and supplied products and did not share profits, manage the program, or exercise control over the franchisor.

Applying the statutory definition and partnership principles, the court concluded there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The claim against the supplier was dismissed while the proposed class action continued against the franchisor.

In a proposed class action concerning alleged misrepresentations in a vending machine distributorship program, the plaintiffs sought leave to file an additional affidavit after cross-examinations had already been completed on a pending summary judgment motion.

The evidence came from a principal of a co-defendant who had entered into a cooperation agreement with the plaintiffs and purported to provide evidence supporting the existence of a partnership or franchisor’s associate relationship.

The court considered Rule 39.03(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which restricts the filing of additional affidavits after cross-examinations without leave.

Although the court found the plaintiffs had not demonstrated that the evidence was previously unavailable and expressed concerns about the cooperation agreement and procedural fairness, it ultimately granted leave because the moving defendant would suffer no prejudice and preferred that the evidentiary record be complete.

Costs were awarded to the opposing party in any event of the cause.