Nicholas Van Exan

On motions to strike in a franchise dispute arising from the post-bankruptcy restructuring of an automotive manufacturer, the court dismissed the entire claim against the U.S. parent entities and struck discrete allegations against the Canadian franchisor.

The court held that a franchisor’s associate is not liable under s. 3 of the Arthur Wishart Act unless it is also a party to the relevant franchise agreement, and further found the pleadings did not satisfy the statutory definition of franchisor’s associate.

The court also held that the pleadings did not justify piercing the corporate veil to impose contractual liability on the parent companies.

Allegations concerning misuse of government bailout funds and the defendants’ preference of their own interests were struck as irrelevant, scandalous, and abusive.

Leave to amend was refused.

The Commissioner of Competition brought an application against Rogers and Chatr alleging that their advertising claims of 'fewer dropped calls than new wireless carriers' and 'no worries about dropped calls' were false, misleading, and made without adequate and proper testing, contrary to the Competition Act.

The court found that the applicant failed to prove the claims were false or misleading.

However, the court found that the respondents failed to conduct adequate and proper testing in certain cities prior to launching the advertising campaign, thereby engaging in reviewable conduct under s. 74.01(1)(b).

The court also dismissed the respondents' constitutional challenges, finding that s. 74.01(1)(b) is a justified limit on freedom of expression and that the administrative monetary penalty does not engage s. 11 of the Charter.

The appellants, high-stakes gamblers who lost approximately $2.1 million playing roulette, sued the casino operators and the provincial gaming regulator.

They alleged that the casino's practice of removing a 'floating ball' from the roulette wheel and calling a 'no-spin' was an unapproved rule of play, rendering the games illegal under the Criminal Code and entitling them to the return of their losses via unjust enrichment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the floating ball practice was not a rule of play requiring regulatory approval, as it did not impact the fairness or integrity of the game.

Furthermore, even if the games were illegal, the casino operators had a juristic reason for enrichment based on their reasonable reliance on the legality of the games, and the regulator owed no private duty of care to the gamblers.