J. McNair

The defendant brought a motion to dismiss the action for delay pursuant to Rule 24.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff opposed the motion and requested an extension of time to restore the action to the trial list.

The court found that the delay was neither intentional nor contumelious, noting that much of the delay was caused by the plaintiff's former counsel withdrawing due to conflicts of interest.

The court also found no prejudice to the defendant, as all witnesses and documents were available.

The defendant's motion was dismissed, the plaintiff's request for an extension was granted, and costs of $20,000 were awarded to the plaintiff.

The franchisor brought a motion for partial summary judgment seeking dismissal of the franchisees’ counterclaim for rescission under s. 6(2) of the Arthur Wishart Act (Franchise Disclosure), 2000.

The franchisees alleged the disclosure document failed to disclose several material facts, including litigation involving the franchisor, anticipated policy changes, and potential renovation costs.

The court held that three of the alleged omissions were not material facts because they arose well after the disclosure document was delivered or could not reasonably affect the franchise price.

Although the existence of contemplated litigation should have been disclosed, the deficiency was not so stark or fundamental as to amount to no disclosure at all.

Accordingly, the franchisees could not rely on the two‑year rescission remedy under s. 6(2), and the rescission counterclaim was dismissed.