Krishana Persaud

The plaintiff franchisor brought an action against the defendant, the sole shareholder of a former corporate franchisee, to recover over $1.7 million in costs awarded to the franchisor in a prior class action commenced by the franchisee.

The plaintiff moved for summary judgment relying on an indemnification provision in the franchise agreement and a personal guarantee signed by the defendant.

The court granted the plaintiff's motion, finding the defendant personally liable under both the indemnification provision and the guarantee.

The court also dismissed the defendant's cross-motion, rejecting arguments that the claim was statute-barred or previously released.

The appellants challenged the trial judge's decision on a franchise dispute under the Arthur Wishart Act (Franchise Disclosure), 2000.

The appellants argued that the trial judge erred in preventing cross-examination regarding the respondent's financing arrangements with Toronto Dominion Bank and in permitting counsel to reference the bank's judgment against the respondent.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, finding that the source of funds paid by the franchisee to the franchisor is irrelevant to the statutory entitlement to refund under the Act.

The court affirmed that Ontario's legislated payback scheme requires the franchisor to refund all money received from the franchisee, regardless of how those funds were obtained.

In a defamation action arising from a Facebook post, the defendant brought an Anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss the proceeding.

The plaintiff subsequently brought a motion for particulars and document inspection to enable it to plead in response to the statement of defence and counterclaim.

The defendant argued the plaintiff's motion was prohibited as a 'further step' under section 137.1(5) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court held that steps relevant to the Anti-SLAPP motion, such as pleadings, are not prohibited.

The court ordered the defendant to provide the requested particulars and documents, and dismissed the defendant's cross-motion to prohibit the plaintiff from bringing further motions.

The plaintiffs, a franchisee and its principal, brought an action for rescission of a franchise agreement under the Arthur Wishart (Franchise Disclosure) Act, 2002, alleging material deficiencies in the franchisor's disclosure document.

The court found three critical deficiencies: the absence of the most recent financial statements, the failure of the franchisor's associate to sign the certificate of truth and accuracy, and the omission of the head lease.

Each deficiency, and certainly all three combined, constituted defective disclosure so material as to amount to "no disclosure at all," thereby triggering the two-year rescission period under s. 6(2) of the Act.

The court rejected the franchisor's arguments that the deficiencies were cured, that disclosure to an agent was sufficient, or that an acknowledgement in the franchise agreement barred the action, citing the Act's consumer protection purpose and "no waiver" provision.

The defendants' counterclaim was dismissed.

The court awarded the plaintiffs rescission damages totaling $287,289.63, including franchise fees, royalties, rent deposit, leasehold improvements, and equipment.