COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
RE:
1368741 ONTARIO INC. and SHIRAZ ISMAIL (Applicants) (Respondents) – and – TRIPLE PIZZA (HOLDINGS) INC., 3 FOR 1 PIZZA AND WINGS (CANADA) INC., TRIPLE HOLDINGS INC., TRIPLE 3 HOLDINGS INC., REZA SOLHI and FARZAD BAGHERZADEH (Respondents) (Appellants)
BEFORE:
LABROSSE, MACPHERSON and CRONK JJ.A.
COUNSEL:
John W. Chidley-Hill
for the appellant
Shiraz Ismail
the respondent in person
HEARD & ENDORSED:
August 31, 2004
On appeal from the judgment of Justice Romain W. M Pitt of the Superior Court of Justice dated May 29, 2003.
A P P E A L B O O K E N D O R S E M E N T
1The appellants appeal the judgment of Justice Romain Pitt dated May 29, 2003 declaring that the respondents had properly rescinded a franchise agreement pursuant to s. 6 of the Arthur Wishart Act (Franchise Disclosure) 2000, S.O. 2003, c. 3. The application judge also declared that all documents related to the franchise agreement, including general security agreements, subleases, mortgages, promissory notes, guarantees and indemnities, were rescinded. The application judge also ordered the return of a $35,000 deposit paid by the respondents.
2The appellants submit that the respondents did not close the transaction and accordingly never became “franchisees” as defined in the Act. We disagree. All of the documents necessary to complete the transaction were executed and delivered to the appellants. Moreover, in so far as the respondents’ obligations were concerned, the full purchase price had been paid. We agree with the application judge: “[T]he subject transaction was closed in the sense that the vendor received the deposit and the debt instrument that secured the balance of the vendor take back loan”. See also: Bekah v. 3 for 1 Pizza & Wings (Canada) Inc., [2003] O.J. No. 4002 (S.C.J.).
3The appellants contend that the application judge improperly pierced the corporate veils of the corporate appellants in order to render them all liable to the appellants. We disagree. The various corporate appellants were essentially a single entity: see MAA Diners Inc. v. 3 for 1 Pizza & Wings Canada Inc., [2004] O.J. No. 297 (C.A.).
4There are no issues with respect to disclosure or the validity of the respondents’ rescission.
5The appeal is dismissed with costs fixed at $2,000, inclusive of disbursements and GST.