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

  1. Did the Defendant and its principal violate Alberta’s Franchise Act by failing to provide a Franchise Disclosure Document (FDD) before accepting payments?
  2. 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
Senior Associate | Litigation Attorney
View Related Blogs
View All
news

Contractual Liability Exclusion Must Be Assessed Against Each Cause of Action Separately, Not Applied Wholesale Where Multiple Claims Are Pleaded in One Action

In Las Vegas Sands, LLC v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, reviewing the matter de novo, held that the lower court had erred ...

INSURANCEInsurance LawJean-Paul RuddLitigation
news

Know your Fund Rules: when can a Pension Fund be held liable for investment loss?

Factual exposition: Mr Carl Francois Conradie (“Mr Conradie”) had been employed from 01 January 1993 until he retired on 31 January 2022. During his employment, he belonged to his employer’s pen...

Commercial LitigationDispute ResolutionLabour LawLABOUR LAWLesetja MochakiLitigationMtho Maphumulo
news

Liability Insurer Has No Duty to Defend or Indemnify Where Property Damage Results From Insured’s Deliberate Placement of Demolition Debris: The Requirement of an “Accident” for Coverage

In Great West Casualty Co. v. VanFleet, the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois held that a commercial general liability (“CGL”) insurer owed no duty to defend or ind...

Dispute ResolutionINSURANCEInsurance LawJean-Paul RuddLitigation