Good Faith – The Shelanu Decision The Ontario Court of Appeal has just released perhaps the most important franchise case since the 1973 Supreme Court Canada decision in Jirna v. Mr. Donut. The decision in Shelanu Inc. v. Print Three Franchising Corp., released on May 20, 2003, may eventually have a greater impact on franchising than Jirna, because Shelanu deals with a number of franchise-related issues.
Defining the Good Faith Standard The Court reaffirmed that no fiduciary relationship exists, stating that franchisors may act in their own self-interest, provided that they have regard to the legitimate interests of their franchisees. Henceforth, franchisors must give consideration to their franchisees’ interests as well as to the franchisor’s own interests before exercising their discretionary powers. In doing so, the franchisor must act honestly and reasonably.
What Constitutes a Breach of the Duty of Good-faith?
The trial judge in Shelanu found it “intrinsically troublesome for a franchisor to develop a concept for a new franchise operation that will operate in competition with its existing franchise operation”. In finding that the franchisor had not breached its good faith obligation to the franchisee, the Court of Appeal found that the trial judge had failed to consider several material factors, including the fact that none of the new Le Print Express franchises were established within the franchisee’s exclusive territory, the franchisee did not complain about Le Print Express for almost seven years after it was established, and the franchisee presented no evidence that it lost income as a result of competition from Le Print Express: the new system targeted a different business sector.
Exclusionary Clauses The parties entered into an oral arrangement respecting the organization of the franchisee and payment of royalty rebates subsequent to the execution of the relevant franchise agreements. In seeking to avoid its obligations under the subsequent oral arrangements, the franchisor pleaded that the “entire agreement” clause of the franchise agreement excluded the existence of any arrangement not expressly set forth in the franchise agreement, and the amendment provisions of the franchise agreement required that a change to the franchise agreements must be reduced to writing and signed by the parties. The Court gave short shrift to these arguments, holding that an exclusion clause would not apply to an arrangement that arose after execution of the agreement. With respect to the amendment clause requirements, the court found that the parties, orally and by their conduct, were free to amend their agreement at any time and by any means.
Fundamental Breach of the Franchise Agreement The ability of franchisees to escape their obligations under their franchise agreement based on an allegation that their franchisor has “fundamentally breached” their agreement has been severely curtailed by this decision. The trial court found that the various failings and breaches by Print Three constituted a fundamental breach of the franchise agreement. The Court of Appeal accepted that Print Three had abused its discretion respecting certain programs, and failed to make certain payments when due, but held that none of these breaches impaired the ability of the franchisee to carry on the commercial purpose of the agreement or deprived the franchisee of substantially the whole benefit of the contract. Accordingly, there had been no fundamental breach and the franchisee continued to be bound by the agreement after its purported termination by the franchisee.
Summary Lessons for franchisors abound in this very important decision: the importance of reducing amendments to writing; the circumstances in which parallel competing systems may be established; the kind of evidence that must be adduced in order to support a claim for damages extending for the full term of a franchise agreement; the kind of conduct that will amount to a fundamental breach of the agreement by the franchisor; an elucidation of the franchisor’s obligations in order to comply with its good faith duty towards its franchisees (the requirement to have regard to the franchisee’s legitimate interests and to deal promptly, honestly, fairly and reasonably with franchisees). This is a soundly reasoned and commercially favourable decision that bodes well for the conduct of franchising in Ontario.
More information. For more information on franchising in Canada, the United States and internationally, please contact Peter Macrae Dillon, head of Siskinds Franchise Law Group. Peter is the author of the annotated Ontario Franchise Disclosure Act and the annotated Alberta Franchises Act and over 30 other publications on the subjects of franchising, licensing and distribution. He is licensed in Ontario and New York. Peter can be contacted at 800-816-9596 ext. 7818 or by email at peter.dillon@siskinds.com. Please visit our website at www.franchiselaw.ca The information contained in this note is for general reference only, and should not be relied upon as constituting legal advice.
peter macrae dillon Siskinds franchise franchisor franchising lawyer attorney Toronto Ontario Canada www.franchiselaw.ca
Good Faith in Franchising: The Shelanu Decision -- Franchise Lawyer Canada - To learn more about this author, visit Peter Macrae Dillon's Website.
Like this article? Share it with your friends
 |
Related Articles |
|
 Good Faith in Franchising: The Shelanu Decision -- Franchise Lawyer Canada
|
| |
This article examines the development of good faith in Canadian franchise law, which received its first important push from the Ontario Court of Appeal in the Print Three v. Shelanu decision.
peter macrae dillon ...
|
|
The Hidden Costs Of Acquiring Another Franchise System
|
| |
When a franchisor is considering acquiring a competing franchise system, it should be aware that such transactions often involve unexpected costs that need to be factored in to its acquisition planning.
peter mac...
|
|
Hiring a Franchise Lawyer
|
| |
Many assume that, because a franchise agreement is by nature a contract, any attorney is competent to review it. However, this is not necessarily the case. Franchise agreements are unique contracts, and only franchi...
|
|
Export your franchise to Australia
|
| |
Australia has more franchises per capita than any other country in the world. There are over 960 systems that produce an impression 14% of Australia's GDP. That is the equivalent of Ł40 Billion in sales which make...
|
|
I Want to Take My Business to the Next Level
|
| |
If you are currently a business owner and thinking about taking the next step, franchising your business; you may want to take a close look at franchising. Franchising can make businesses very successful. Many bus...
|
|
|
Peter Macrae Dillon
(Visit Peter's Website)
Peter Macrae Dillon is one of North
America’s leading and most-respected
franchise attorneys. He is licensed to
practice law in Ontario and New York. He
specializes in advising start-up
franchisors in the conversion and early
stages of franchising. His group
represents mature Canadian and American
franchise systems operating in Canada, the
United States, and internationally. Email
Peter at pe
ter.dillon@siskinds.com or visit his
website at: www.franchisel
aw.ca
peter macrae dillon franchise franchisor
lawyer attorney Toronto Ontario Canada www.franchisel
aw.ca
|
|
|
|
![[Get Copyright Permissions]](http://license.icopyright.net/images/icopy-w.gif){kind=small}
