Beyond the entity: Canadian court extends liability to Franchise principals
Facts
In 2022, the Plaintiff sought to invest in a Sharetea franchise in Alberta. The Defendant was the master franchisee for Sharetea in Alberta, operated and controlled by an individual. The Defendant provided the Plaintiff with promotional materials and revenue figures for existing Sharetea locations, leading to a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in September 2022. However, the MOU was not signed by the Defendant and did not mention the Plaintiff. Despite this, the Plaintiff made four payments totaling $74,242 to the Defendant, which included $52,500 as a franchise fee and additional amounts for equipment, inventory, and utensils. No Franchise Disclosure Document (FDD) was ever provided to the Plaintiff, nor was a formal franchise agreement signed. The Plaintiff did not receive any goods it paid for. In October 2023, the Plaintiff’s legal counsel cancelled the franchise arrangement due to the Defendant’s failure to provide the required disclosure documents and demanded a refund.
Issues for determination
- Did the Defendant and its principal violate Alberta’s Franchise Act by failing to provide a Franchise Disclosure Document (FDD) before accepting payments?
- Was the principal of the Defendant personally liable for the statutory breach as an “associate” under the Act?
Court’s findings
The Court found that the Defendant failed to comply with the mandatory disclosure obligations under Alberta’s Franchise Act (RSA 2000, c F-23). No valid FDD was provided, and payments were accepted without observing the required 14-day disclosure period. The Plaintiff was therefore entitled to rescind the agreement and recover its losses. The Court also held that the principal of the Defendant was personally liable as an “associate” under the Act due to her direct involvement and control over the Defendant’s operations.
Decision
The Court awarded $74,242 in damages to the Plaintiff, jointly and severally against the Defendant and its principal.
Article by:
Mtho Maphumulo
Attorney at Adams & Adams
Partner in the Insurance & Financial Services Law Department

Mtho Maphumulo
Acknowledgement of Debt - Promissory note
FACTUAL BACKGROUND The plaintiff issued summons against the defendant for payment of R696,002.42, together with interest and costs. The claim was founded upon an Acknowledgement of Debt (“AOD”) co...
June 30 2026
Knowledge, notice and cancellation: crucial lessons from Dimension Church (US judgment)
Introduction The recent decision in Dimension Church v. Church Mutual Insurance Company, S.I. offers a instructive reminder of the exacting standards that apply when an insurer seeks to cancel a polic...
June 08 2026
The Certificate of Need Scheme struck down: Constitutional Court confirms invalidity of Sections 36 to 40 of the National Health Act
Introduction On 18 May 2026, the Constitutional Court handed down a unanimous judgment in Solidarity Trade Union and Others v Minister of Health and Others, confirming the order of constitutional inva...
May 19 2026

