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
INTERDICT DENIED: MUNICIPALITIES FACE A HIGH BAR ON PENSION WITHHOLDING
Factual background The Mpumalanga High Court has recently delivered a judgment on the critical considerations regarding withholding of pension benefits. While the judgment is not groundbreaking, it se...
December 12 2025
D&O: U.S. Court Enforces Prior‑Notice Exclusion for Meaningfully Linked Circumstances
The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware has recently held that a prior notice exclusion barred cover for securities and derivative actions that were meaningfully linked to circumstances d...
December 04 2025
Biometrics and CGL Exclusions: U.S. Court Finds No Cover for Facial‑Recognition Claims Under “Access or Disclosure” Clause
A U.S. district court in Illinois has recently held that a commercial general liability policy’s “access or disclosure of confidential or personal information” exclusion defeated cover for a cla...
November 26 2025

