SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: ADP Direct Poultry Ltd. v. Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen, Inc. et al
BEFORE: Associate Justice Rappos
COUNSEL: Macdonald Allen, Caelan MacDonald, and Philip Wallner, for the Plaintiff Andrew Faith and Alex Sokolov, for Robert Manuel Geoff Hunnisett and Elie Farkas, for the Defendants Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen, Inc. and Restaurant Brands International Inc. Lara Di Genova, for the Defendant Restaurant Services Canada Inc. Ravi Sawhney, for certain Defendants Sajid Mahmood, for the Defendants 14104072 Canada Inc. and 14234332 Canada Inc.
HEARD: November 19, 2025 (via videoconference)
REASONS FOR DECISION
Overview
1The Plaintiff, ADP Direct Poultry Ltd., brought a motion for leave to amend its statement of claim to add seven corporate defendants and three individual defendants. In support of its motion, the Plaintiff filed an affidavit of its President, Augo Pinho, sworn September 24, 2025.
2As set out in my Endorsement dated November 19, 2025, the Plaintiff’s motion was granted on an unopposed basis.
3However, one of the proposed Defendants, Robert Manuel, brought a cross-motion requesting an order striking and expunging paragraphs 19(e), 21, 23, 24 and 25 of the Pinho affidavit.
4Mr. Manuel argues that these paragraphs: (a) were included in the affidavit in an attempt to defame and embarrass him; (b) contain gratuitous, scandalous, inflammatory and inadmissible allegations; (c) are an abuse of process and prejudice him as he is in no position to defend against them in the leave motion; and (d) are not admissible evidence of information and belief because they are statements of multi-level hearsay whose origin is not identified.
5The Plaintiff argues that the information it received concerning Mr. Manuel’s involvement in the alleged misconduct forms the basis for its claim against him. It says that the statements are not offered on the motion for the truth of their contents and thus are not hearsay. The Plaintiff also argues that the statements are relevant to its reason for adding Mr. Manuel as a defendant at this stage and were in anticipation that Mr. Manuel could raise a limitation defence.
6For the reasons set out below, Mr. Manuel’s cross-motion is dismissed.
Background
7The Plaintiff commenced its claim through the issuance of a notice of action dated April 25, 2025. The initial statement of claim was issued on May 26, 2025. An amended statement of claim was issued on June 23, 2025.
8As set out in its pleading, the Plaintiff is a supplier of raw chicken products. The action is with respect to the Plaintiff’s supply of chicken to restaurants in Ontario that operate under the Popeyes brand.
9At a high level, the claim is with respect to the Plaintiff’s allegations that uninspected, unsafe, and unlawful chicken products are being supplied by an uninspected and unauthorized supplier to Popeyes franchises. The Plaintiff alleges that it reported this “unsafe supply” to Popeye’s Louisiana Kitchen, Inc. (the franchisor for Popeyes restaurants) (“PLK”), Restaurant Brands International Inc. (a subsidiary of the franchisor, which established the terms and conditions of supply of chicken products and controlled the supply chain) (“RBI”), and Restaurant Services Canada Inc. (supply chain manager for PLK and RBI) (“RSCI”).
10Following the disclosure, the Plaintiff alleges that these defendants subjected it to increased scrutiny and laboratory testing, attempted to manufacture breaches of the supply agreement, and conspired with other defendants to remove the Plaintiff as an authorized supplier. The Plaintiff’s status as an authorized supplier was terminated in December 2024.
11The Plaintiff sought leave to issue a further amended statement of claim, which had amendments that included adding Mr. Manuel as a defendant in this action. In its proposed amended claim, the Plaintiff seeks damages against Mr. Manuel for conspiracy, unlawful interference with economic relations, and loss of opportunity, along with aggravated and punitive damages.
12In its proposed amendments, the Plaintiff makes the following allegations, among others, with respect to Mr. Manuel:
(a) that while he was PLK’s General Manager for Canada he unjustly abused his position of authority to the Plaintiff’s detriment and for his own direct or indirect personal gain (para. 5(ii));
(b) that he was responsible for managing the supply of chicken products for PLK until his employment came to an end in April 2025 (para. 9(ii));
(c) that he had overall responsibility for RSCI, the suppliers, and franchisees, and was given significant autonomy, presented to suppliers and franchisees as the figure of authority, and left unsupervised to engage with franchisees (para. 17);
(d) that he attended PLK franchisee stores, witnessed unsafe supply, and had closed certain stores as a result (para. 33(iv));
(e) that he would investigate the unsafe supply and get back to the Plaintiff with the findings, which never occurred (para. 38(i));
(f) that he authorized, condoned and perpetuated a culture of corporate misconduct, which included accepting payments and collateral benefits directly or indirectly from franchisees (para. 38(v));
(g) that he abused his position to cover up the unsafe supply issue in exchange for personal payments (para. 48(ii));
(h) that he proactively sought to remove the Plaintiff from being an authorized supplier at the request of certain franchisees (para. 49(ii)); and
(i) that he was incentivized to unfairly and unjustly treat the Plaintiff because he and his family had a personal relationship with another supplier who stood to gain if the Plaintiff was no longer an authorized supplier (para. 49(ii).
Analysis
13The paragraphs that Mr. Manuel takes issue with from Mr. Pinho’s affidavit are reproduced below:
On July 31, 2025, I met with Siva and Mr. Farooq. During this meeting I learned from Mr. Farooq that: … (e) if ADP had made an ‘arrangement’ with Mr. Manuel, the General Manager for Popeyes in Canada at all material times, ADP would still be a supplier for PLK…
Since commencing the Action, ADP received information from various whistleblowers who have raised concerns about Mr. Manuel’s conduct while he was leading PLK in Canada…
I also understand and believe from discussions with Mukhtar Khokhar (“Mr. Khokhar”), an individual that used to be a partner in a Popeyes franchise, that:
(a) Mr. Manuel was directly involved in the operation of PLK and RBI’s Marketing Advisory Council (“Council”) which was a cooperative trade association of Popeyes franchisees to promote the interests of franchisees in Ontario;
(b) franchisees met with the Council to discuss issues that were affecting them including but not limited to the cost of goods, suppliers, menu pricing, and other issues;
(c) during meetings with the Council franchisees discussed making under-the-table payments to Mr. Manuel and providing other benefits to him in order to, among other things: (i) avoid the strict application of health, safety, and other PLK and RBI policies; and (ii) be selected for opportunities to expand and acquire more locations;
(d) Mr. Manuel worked with other franchisees against ADP’s interests because ADP refused to issue credits for unfounded quality complaints;
(e) Mr. Khokhar refused to make under-the-table payments to Mr. Manuel in order to expand the number of locations; and
(f) Mr. Manuel was terminated from PLK and RBI because of the “mess” he was involved with and his failure to control issues between franchisees and suppliers.
- I discovered in August 2025 that Mr. Manuel is a defendant in another proceeding commenced by a former Popeyes franchise owner having court file number CV-24-00729046-0000 in which it is alleged among other things, that Mr. Manuel:
(a) engaged in unfair and discriminatory treatment of franchisees;
(b) interfered with sale processes of franchisees by pressuring or requiring sales to parties preferred by Mr. Manuel; and
(c) did not immediately require franchisees to close operations for failing to comply with food safety standards and Popeyes policies. A copy of the Statement of Claim in that other proceeding is attached as Exhibit “P”.
- I learned during a discussion with Abdul Munim Sheikh (“Mr. Shahid”), an individual involved with certification of chicken as halal that has worked with Amir Quality Meats (another supplier to PLK) that:
(a) Mr. Manuel would look the other way if the Popeyes stores got their supply from a supplier that was not authorized by Popeyes; and
(b) Mr. Manuel used his position as General Manger of Popeyes to engage in preferential dealings with people he has close personal relationships with including Sherry Aziz (the CFO of Amir Quality Meats).
14Mr. Manuel argues that the Court should strike these paragraphs under the discretion granted to it under rule 25.11 of the Rules. Rule 25.11 provides that the court may strike out or expunge all or part of a pleading or other document, with or without leave to amend, on the ground that the pleading or other document, (a) may prejudice or delay the fair trial of the action; (b) is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious; or (c) is an abuse of process of the court.
15Mr. Manuel argues that permitting an affidavit with inadmissible evidence to remain would prejudice the fair trial of the action and is an abuse of process.
16Mr. Manuel relies on subrules 4.06(2) and 39.01(4) in support of his position. Subrule 4.06(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure provides that an affidavit shall be confined to the statement of facts within the personal knowledge of the deponent or to other evidence that the deponent could give if testifying as a witness in court, except where the Rules provide otherwise. Subrule 39.01(1) of the Rules provides that an affidavit for use on a motion may contain statements of the deponent’s information and belief, if the source of the information and the fact of the belief are specified in the affidavit.
17Mr. Manuel argues that there is improper hearsay in the paragraphs in question. With respect to paragraph 19(e), Mr. Manuel says that it is an inflammatory allegation that fails to identify the source of Mr. Farooq’s knowledge, making it impossible to determine its origin or reliability. Mr. Manuel says that the information is ambiguous as to its meaning or relevance, containing only an oblique suggestion that Mr. Manuel was willing to engage in an unspecified “arrangement” with the Plaintiff. Mr. Manuel alleges that Mr. Pinho does not even attempt to explain how Mr. Farooq could know the information.
18With respect to paragraph 21, Mr. Manuel argues that this information fails to identity the “information” received by the Plaintiff, the “various whistleblowers” who allegedly provided the information, and the “concerns” the unnamed individuals communicated to ADP, if any.
19With respect to paragraph 23, Mr. Manuel argues that Mr. Pinho fails to identify the source of Mr. Mukhtar’s information, making it impossible to determine its origin or reliability. He also claims that Mr. Pinho does not attempt to explain how Mr. Mukhtar could have known the information, other than an oblique and unhelpful reference to his being a former Popeyes franchisee.
20With respect to paragraph 25, Mr. Manuel argues that Mr. Pinho fails to state the source of Mr. Sheikh’s information, making it impossible to determine its origin or reliability. Mr. Manuel says that Mr. Pinho does not attempt to explain how Mr. Sheikh was in a position to know the information that he restated, other than a vague reference to his being a chicken certifier who worked in some unnamed capacity with a supplier to PLK.
21Mr. Manuel relies on a number of cases in support of his arguments that affidavits that fail to state the source of the deponent’s information and belief should be struck, that leaving inadmissible evidence on the record is embarrassing and prejudicial, and that evidence tendered in violation of the rules of evidence must be struck and not considered. This is particularly the case where responding to the inadmissible evidence would result in needless expenditure of time and resources.1
22I acknowledge that the legal principles summarized above are binding decisions concerning the use of hearsay statements in affidavits and their potential impact on the counterparty to the statements.
23However, the context that Mr. Manuel’s motion is being brought in is important to the applicability of these legal principles. In this case, the Plaintiff’s motion to add Mr. Manuel as a defendant has been granted on an unopposed basis. While I understand that Mr. Manuel challenges the admissibility of the statements as evidence, he does not need to respond to the allegations since the motion has been granted.
24That is very different from the cases cited by Mr. Manuel. In both Copik v. Mitsubishi Paper Mills Ltd. and Price v. Smith & Wesson Corp., the motion to strike was with respect to paragraphs in affidavits that were filed in connection with contested class action certification motions. In Aker Biomarine AS et al. v. KGK Synergize Inc., the paragraphs at issue were in an affidavit filed in support of a contested letters rogatory application. In Holder v. Wray and McPeake v. Barber, the paragraphs at issue were in affidavits filed in support of contested summary judgment motions.
25Effectively, as the Plaintiff’s motion was granted and not opposed by Mr. Manuel, the impact of the statements in the Pinho affidavit are moot. The Plaintiff does not profess any intention on relying on Mr. Pinho’s affidavit going forward in this litigation. Mr. Manuel would be free to cross-examine Mr. Pinho on his affidavit if the Plaintiff decides to rely on it for a different motion in the future and challenge him on the statements.
26This is very different from the situations relied on by Mr. Manuel. In those cases, the affidavits were the crucial, if not sole, evidence that was filed in the motions and applications that were being contested by the moving party. Here, the motion to amend the pleadings has been granted without any opposition by Mr. Manuel.
27Additionally, when reviewing the statements made in the paragraphs of the Mr. Pinho affidavit and comparing them to the allegations made against Mr. Manuel in the further amended statement of claim, it is readily apparent that the allegations are substantially the same. As a result, Mr. Manuel will have the ability to challenge the allegations made by the Plaintiff throughout the discovery process and in the final adjudication of the action. The statements made in the Pinho affidavit will not leave serious allegations of misconduct left unanswered, as they will be addressed throughout the civil litigation process. Mr. Manuel will have the ability to summons Mr. Pinho as a witness in the event he is not the Plaintiff’s representative on discovery, and also will have the ability to summons any of the individuals referenced by Mr. Pinho in the paragraphs at issue. As a result, I fail to see how leaving the statements in an affidavit for an unopposed motion will in any way prejudice Mr. Manuel in this proceeding or be an abuse of process of the court.
28On the issue of whether the statements made in the challenged paragraphs are impermissible hearsay, the Plaintiff says that they are not, as the statements were not being offered on the motion for the truth of their contents. The Plaintiff says that the paragraphs were directed to dealing with when it discovered that it had a claim personally as against Mr. Manuel in anticipation of a possible limitations defence.
29It was confirmed during the hearing that Mr. Manuel had, through counsel, elected not to resist the filing of the amended statement of claim on the basis of any limitations defence.
30In reading the paragraphs in the context of the motion brought by the Plaintiff, I agree that the statements were not tendered for the truth of their contents. The Plaintiff was not alleging at the amendment motion that Mr. Manuel in fact did all the acts that they allege that they he did for the purposes of their claim. I agree with the interpretation that the statements were made in support of when the Plaintiff discovered that they potentially had claims as against Mr. Manuel and thus were required to bring an amendment motion. The Plaintiff was in no way asking the Court to render a decision as to Mr. Manuel’s conduct for the purposes of the motion. They were simply asking that they be permitted to amend their statement of claim to pursue allegations as against Mr. Manuel. Mr. Manuel did not oppose that request.
31As a result, I find that the statements made in the paragraphs at issue are relevant to the pleadings amendment motion, and as they are relevant, they cannot be said to be scandalous, frivolous or vexatious.2
32Additionally, to the extent that I am incorrect and the statements contained in the paragraphs at issue are inadmissible hearsay and contravene subrules 4.06(2) and 39.01(4) of the Rules, I believe it is necessary and in the interest of justice to dispense with compliance with these rules. The motion was not opposed by Mr. Manuel. The striking of the paragraphs would serve no purpose, and leaving the affidavit in its current state will not prejudice Mr. Manuel or impact his ability to contest the validity of the allegations. The ultimate fact finding necessary to resolve the truthfulness of the allegations will be completed through the trial process, which Mr. Manuel will no doubt be an active participant in.
Disposition
33For the reasons set out above, Mr. Manuel’s cross-motion is dismissed.
34On the issue of costs, I strongly urge the parties to come to an agreement. If they are unable to do so, they may seek my directions for the exchange of cost submissions.
Associate Justice Rappos
DATE: March 26, 2026
Footnotes
- See Copik v. Mitsubishi Paper Mills Ltd., 2002 CarswellOnt 2336 (SCJ), para. 26; Price v. Smith & Wesson Corp., 2021 ONSC 8471, para. 54; Aker Biomarine AS et al. v. KGK Synergize Inc., 2013 ONSC 4897, para. 10; Holder v. Wray, 2018 ONSC 6133, para. 42; and McPeake v. Barber et al., 2024 ONSC 3909, para. 14.
- Belokon v The Kyrgyz Republic et al., 2015 ONSC 5918, paras. 23-25.