Michele Marie Ballagh

A franchisee brought an action against the franchisor alleging failure to disclose material information under the Arthur Wishart Act in connection with a renewal of a franchise agreement and the franchisor’s requirement that the franchisee undertake costly renovations to convert its store to a sit‑down restaurant.

The franchisee claimed the renovations constituted a material change requiring disclosure and alleged breaches of good faith, damages for loss of the business, and lost profits.

The court held that the renovation program had been disclosed and known to the franchisee since before the original franchise agreement and therefore did not constitute a material change at renewal within the meaning of the Arthur Wishart Act.

The court further found the franchisor acted in good faith and made multiple reasonable accommodations and offers to the franchisee.

In any event, the franchisee failed to mitigate its damages by refusing to return to operate the store for the remaining term of the agreement.

The action was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent $25,000 in damages for breach of contract and denying the appellant pre-judgment interest.

The Court of Appeal upheld the damage award as reasonable but found no basis for the respondent to retain three consignment watches without compensating the appellant.

The Court also held that the appellant was presumptively entitled to pre-judgment interest under the Courts of Justice Act.

The appeal was allowed in part.

The appellant sought costs following a trial and appeal.

Based on a settlement offer dated March 13, 2002, the appellant was entitled to partial indemnity costs up to the date of the offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

The Court of Appeal fixed the appellant's costs at trial at $60,000 inclusive of disbursements and GST, noting that the requested fees exceeded trial counsel's actual billable rate.

The appellant accepted a commissioned sales position with the respondent and resigned from his previous job.

After starting work, he was required to sign a 'Solicitor's Agreement' that severely restricted his entitlement to commissions.

The appellant later resigned and sued for unpaid commissions.

The trial judge dismissed the claim, finding the agreement enforceable.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the Solicitor's Agreement was an amendment to the employment contract and was unenforceable for lack of consideration, as the employer did not provide anything of value, such as increased job security, in exchange for the employee signing it.

The appellant was awarded his unpaid commissions.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment dismissing his claim for constructive dismissal.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge erred by not applying an objective test.

An objective review of the facts, including a substantial reduction in managerial responsibility and removal from his office, established constructive dismissal.

The Court also held the appellant had no duty to remain at the workplace while seeking other employment.

Damages were awarded in the amount of $171,269.25.