Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

O (Why) Canada? The Ontario Court of Appeal Speaks in Rare Franchising Decision

By Markus Cohen, Q.C., LL.M.
September 11, 2003

Part 1 of a 2-part series.

Why should U.S. franchisors care about Canada and Canadian franchise law? Savvy franchisors realize that Canada's population is about the same as California's, and that the tastes of many Canadians are similar to (and molded) by their American counterparts. Also, U.S. franchisors' investment in Canada is facilitated under the North American Free Trade Agreement and the Investment Canada Act. While there are certainly similarities between the United States and Canada in the law respecting business-format franchising and trademarks, there are some major differences as well ' some subtle; others not so subtle. For example:

  • There is no federal jurisdiction over franchising per se. Canada's constitution gives exclusive jurisdiction over property and civil rights ' including contracts and the like ' to the provinces.
  • Contrariwise, provincial jurisdiction over trademarks is nonexistent: There are no provincial trademark registrations in Canada.
  • As this is written, only the provinces of Alberta and Ontario have franchise-specific legislation in force ' the remaining provinces rely on laws of general application and (excepting Quebec) the common law to inform franchise practices.
  • Franchises in the province of Quebec are largely governed by the Code Civil du Quebec (ie, the Civil Code of Quebec), which, among other things ' and unlike the common law provinces ' obliges parties to negotiate their contracts in good faith, not merely perform them in that manner once concluded.

The law as it relates to franchising has been slower to develop in Canada than in the United States. That is why the appearance of a new decision from the most populous province's Court of Appeal is a notable event. Such an event occurred on May 20, 2003 with the release of the Ontario Court of Appeal's decision in Shelanu Inc. v. Print Three Franchising Corp. [2003] O.J. No. 1919, Docket No. C35392. Arguably, this is the most important of the fewer than 100 or so franchise cases to reach that Court in the three decades since its decision in Jirna Ltd. v. Mr. Donut was released in 1972, later finding its way to the Supreme Court of Canada (reported at [1975] 1 S.C.R. 2) to become the most famous (if not the most famously followed) franchise decision in Canada.

Read These Next
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later Image

The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.

The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs Image

The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.

Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar Investigations Image

This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.

Bankruptcy Sales: Finding a Diamond In the Rough Image

There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.

Compliance Officers: Recent Regulatory Guidance and Enforcement Actions and Mitigating the Risk of Personal Liability Image

This article explores legal developments over the past year that may impact compliance officer personal liability.