Digital Brain
digital brain
digital brain

Changes to Ontario’s Franchise Legislation Are Underway

November 2017 Litigation, Business Litigation, and Franchise & Distribution Bulletin 2 minute read

Ontario’s Arthur Wishart Act (Franchise Legislation), 2000 (the “Arthur Wishart Act”) will most likely see some important changes in the coming months as a result of Bill 154, the Cutting Unnecessary Red Tape Act, 2017. Bill 154 was introduced on September 14, 2017 for the purpose of making it easier for businesses to grow and to streamline the regulatory environment within which they operate.  Towards that end, Bill 154 proposes a repeal of some statutes, the enactment of new legislation, and amends several statutes, including the Arthur Wishart Act.

The proposed amendments to the Arthur Wishart Act largely reflect recommendations that the Ontario Business Law Advisory Council proposed earlier in 2016. Some of the key changes to the Arthur Wishart Act set out in Bill 154 include:

  • Amending the definition of “franchise” to include relationships where the franchisor has the right to exercise control, rather than the actual exercise of control, over the franchisee’s method of operation;
  • Allowing franchisors to accept fully refundable deposits that do not exceed a prescribed amount (the prescribed amount is expected to be 20% of the initial franchise fee, as in British Columbia) without triggering the disclosure document obligation;
  • Allowing franchisors to enter into non-disclosure and location agreements with prospective franchisees without triggering the disclosure document obligation (Ontario is currently the only regulated province that does not permit non-disclosure agreements to be signed before delivering a disclosure document);
  • Expanding the scope of the disclosure exemption to include the grant of a franchise to a person (or a company controlled by that person) who is currently an officer or director of the franchisor (or who was an officer or director of the franchisor up to four months prior to the relevant time); and
  • Clarifying the “large investment” and “de minimis investment” disclosure exemptions to clarify timing and the method of calculating the relevant investment amount.

Bill 154 is already in its Second Reading and is expected to proceed through the legislative process quickly.  Text for Bill 154 can be read at http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/bills/bills_detail.do?locale=en&Intranet=&BillID=5000.

We will continue to update you on Bill 154’s progress.

by W. Brad Hanna and Cara Zacks

A Cautionary Note

The foregoing provides only an overview and does not constitute legal advice. Readers are cautioned against making any decisions based on this material alone. Rather, specific legal advice should be obtained.

© McMillan LLP 2017

Insights (5 Posts)

Featured Insight

Upfront Compensation for Segregated Funds: Is a Total Ban on the Horizon?

Insurance Regulators are exploring regulatory changes to Segregated Funds compensation arrangement on Insurers, Intermediaries and Consumers.

Read More
Sep 28, 2022
Featured Insight

Too Quick to (Summary) Judge: The Shortcomings of Summary Judgment in Patent Actions in Canada

The FCA addresses the shortcomings of summary judgment in patent cases, along with issues relating to "common general knowledge" and experimental testing.

Read More
Sep 27, 2022
Featured Insight

Land Use Planning and BOMA Standards: Issues and Possible Solutions

McMillan’s Commercial Real Estate and Litigation & Dispute Resolution teams are offering a conference on a variety of current issues relating to real estate development and BOMA Standards.

Details
October 27, 2022
Featured Insight

Just Say No (to Fixed-Term Employment Contracts): Court Awards 23 Months’ Pay to Former Business Owner

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has issued another warning to employers who enter into fixed-term contracts with their employees.

Read More
Sep 26, 2022
Featured Insight

Single Proceeding Model Trumps Contractual Rights – Arbitration Clause Held “Inoperative” in Insolvency Proceeding

Ontario's highest court has held that an arbitration clause may be unenforceable in an appropriate insolvency proceeding, introducing contractual uncertainty.

Read More
Sep 26, 2022