Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Ontario Government Amends Franchise Regulations

By Lawrence Weinberg
March 01, 2004

Certain defects in the regulations under the Arthur Wishart Act (Franchise Disclosure), 2000 (the “Wishart Act”) have been apparent to many in Canada's franchise community since the Wishart Act came into full effect on Jan. 31, 2001. Now, the Ontario government, through the Ministry of Consumer and Business Services, has released amendments to the regulations under the Wishart Act effective March 22, 2004.

The amendments are intended to clarify matters in the regulations that were either unclear or were unintentionally omitted from the original regulations. However, and perhaps unfortunately, at least one of the changes may lead to new complications for certain foreign-based franchisors.

Some of the more noteworthy amendments are:

  • A definition of “franchisor's agent” was added in order to clarify the right of action for damages against agents that is included in the Wishart Act. Before, the term was undefined. A “franchisor's agent” is now defined as a sales agent of the franchisor who is engaged by the franchisor's broker and who is directly involved in the granting of a franchise.
  • Audited financial statements must now be prepared in accordance with the generally accepted auditing standards set out in the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants Handbook. Previously, only reviewed financial statements needed to comply with the standards set out in the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants Handbook. This amendment may be the most troubling, in that U.S. and other foreign-based franchisors, and their advisers, need to consider whether their existing audited statements will suffice, and if not, what alternatives are available by March 22, 2004, being the date the amendments come into effect.
  • The mandatory disclosure of all costs associated with the franchise was amended to limit the disclosure to only the costs associated with the establishment of the franchise. Previously, the regulation required disclosure of all costs associated with the establishment and operation of the franchise. This is a positive development, and brings Ontario into line with the disclosure regimes in other jurisdictions.
  • All franchise location closures that occurred within the 3 fiscal years immediately preceding the date of the disclosure document must be disclosed. Previously, the regulation required continuous disclosure of all such closures within the previous 3 calendar years from the date of the disclosure document. This too is a positive development, as it simplifies the task of keeping disclosure documents current.
  • The criteria for the exemption from the requirement to provide financial statements in the disclosure document have been expanded to recognize situations in which a franchisor meets the criteria because it is controlled by a corporation that meets the prior criteria for the exemption. Certain franchisors that previously did not qualify for the financial statement exemption may now qualify.


Lawrence Weinberg [email protected]

Certain defects in the regulations under the Arthur Wishart Act (Franchise Disclosure), 2000 (the “Wishart Act”) have been apparent to many in Canada's franchise community since the Wishart Act came into full effect on Jan. 31, 2001. Now, the Ontario government, through the Ministry of Consumer and Business Services, has released amendments to the regulations under the Wishart Act effective March 22, 2004.

Read These Next
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.

Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.

Legal Possession: What Does It Mean? Image

Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.

Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York Image

In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?