3 total
No costs awarded where both parties achieved very modest success and plaintiff's recovery was within Small Claims limit.
Following a trial regarding a franchise termination where both parties achieved very modest success, the parties made submissions on costs.
The plaintiffs sought over $222,000, while the defendants sought $150,000.
The court found that the parties achieved divided success, with the plaintiffs recovering an amount within the Small Claims Court jurisdiction and the defendants succeeding only on minor counterclaims.
The court ordered that both parties bear their own costs.
Franchisor breached month-to-month agreement by terminating on two days' notice; franchisee's protests not defamatory.
The plaintiff franchisee operated a pizza franchise for 17 years.
After the franchise system was sold, the new franchisor terminated the plaintiff's month-to-month franchise agreement on two days' notice following failed renewal negotiations.
The plaintiff subsequently protested outside the store, leading the franchisor to counterclaim for nuisance, defamation, trespass, and intentional interference with economic relations.
The court held that the franchisor was entitled to terminate the agreement but failed to provide reasonable notice, awarding the plaintiff $10,000.
The court dismissed the franchisor's counterclaims for nuisance, defamation, and interference, finding the protests were largely peaceful and the statements were either justified or fair comment, but awarded $100 in nominal damages for a minor trespass involving gluing posters to the store windows.
The Court of Appeal affirmed a franchisee's rescission and damages award for franchisor non-disclosure.
The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal by the franchisor and its associates from a trial judgment granting rescission and damages to the franchisee under the Arthur Wishart Act (Franchise Disclosure), 2000.
The court upheld the trial judge’s findings that the statutory exemption from disclosure did not apply, that the franchisee validly rescinded the franchise and ancillary agreements, and that the franchisee was entitled to statutory compensation and substantial indemnity costs.
The court found no error in the trial judge’s assessment of damages or costs.
