Canada: The Ontario Superior Court Certifies A Class Action Brought By Former Franchisees

Justice Strathy of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice recently certified a class proceeding brought by former General Motors car dealership franchisees against General Motors of Canada Ltd. ("GMC") and Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP ("Cassels"). The decision illustrates the growing trend of class proceedings stemming from the franchisor/franchisee relationship, as well as the more rare circumstance of legal counsel being defendants to a class proceeding.


The class proceeding arose from the economic downturn and the financial bailout provided by the governments of the United States and Canada to the distressed automaker in 2009. Upon the insistence of the federal and Ontario governments that it fundamentally reorganize its business, GMC informed 240 of its franchisees in May 2009 that their dealer agreements would not be renewed and instead offered franchisees a wind-down package.

The representative plaintiff, Trillium, was one of the GMC dealers that entered into a Wind-Down Agreement ("WDA")1 with GMC in May 2009 and voluntarily terminated its dealership agreement. Trillium sought to represent a class composed of dealers who similarly signed the WDA, claiming that GMC breached its obligations under the Arthur Wishart Act (Franchise Disclosure) 2000 S.O. 2000 c. 3 (the "Arthur Wishart Act") and comparable franchise legislation in Alberta and Prince Edward Island. Trillium also alleged that Cassels had been retained to act on behalf of the GMC dealers' Canadian Automotive Dealers' Association ("CADA"), and drafted a memo to the dealers and participated in a conference call in May 2009. However, by virtue of the fact that Cassels had also been retained by the Canadian government to provide advice on the GMC bailout negotiations, Cassels had an undisclosed conflict of interest and breached duties that it owed to the terminated dealers.

The Plaintiff's claims against GMC

Trillium claimed that GMC breached its duties under the Arthur Wishart Act and the legislation's counterparts in Alberta and PEI2 In particular, it was asserted that the WDA was a "franchise agreement" as defined in the legislation, and that GMC failed to deliver a disclosure document 14 days before a franchisee was required to execute the WDA, pursuant to section 5(1). Instead, GMC adopted a strategy designed to keep franchisees "in the dark" concerning GMC's financial position. Damages were claimed for breach of the statutory duty of fair dealing and interference with the right of association, and Trillium sought a declaration that class members could rescind the WDA due to the failure of GMC to provide a disclosure document.

The Plaintiff's claims against Cassels

It was pleaded that Cassels had failed to properly advise and represent class members, largely by failing to inform franchisees of their rights under the Arthur Wishart Act and in developing a collective response to the WDA. As a result of its breach of contract and negligence, the plaintiffs claimed that Cassels deprived all class members of the opportunity to obtain a more advantageous negotiated wind-down. Moreover, by advising the Canadian government in the bailout negotiations, that Cassels was in an undisclosed conflict of interest (since the bailout was conditional on GMC taking a more aggressive approach to restructuring of its dealership network) and was not in a position to provide independent and impartial advice. It was asserted that this constituted a breach of fiduciary duty.3

The Certification Motion

After addressing the applicable provisions of the Arthur Wishart Act and the purpose of the legislation, Justice Strathy commented on the intersection of franchisee claims and the Class Proceedings Act, 2002 S.O. 2002 c. 6 (the "CPA"). In particular, his Honour quoted the authors of the Ontario Law Reform Commission in 1982, who noted the particular suitability of claims by franchisees for class action treatment. After reviewing prior Ontario class actions involving the franchise relationship,4 Justice Strathy applied the five-part test for certification under section 5 of the CPA.

The Pleadings Disclosed Causes of Action

The Plaintiff asserted three claims under the applicable franchise legislation, namely a claim of breach of the duty of fair dealing, breach of right of association, and breach of the franchisor's obligation of disclosure. On the certification motion GMC only contested the latter claim under section 5 of the Arthur Wishart Act with respect to the provision of a disclosure document. First, it was argued that the disclosure obligation is directed only to a "prospective franchisee" and not to an amendment of an existing franchise agreement. Second, GMC contested the Plaintiff's position that the WDA was a "franchise agreement" so as to trigger the disclosure document obligation, characterizing the WDA as akin to a settlement. In addition, GMC had historically maintained that its dealership agreements were not "franchise agreements" and subject to the Arthur Wishart Act; notwithstanding this fact, the WDA provided that the dealer released all rights under the statute or similar legislation. On the motion, GMC conceded that its dealers were subject to the Arthur Wishart Act.

After noting that the issues raised were novel, Justice Strathy held that it was not plain and obvious that the disclosure obligation did not arise by virtue of the WDA, noting "it does not strike me as unreasonable, or inconsistent, with the statutory purpose" to suggest that GMC had an obligation to make "full and fair disclosure of all material facts known to it that might reasonably affect the franchisee's decision" to enter into the WDA.

With respect to the claims against Cassels, the law firm argued that Trillium had failed to plead the particulars of the cause of action for breach of contract. The terms of the Cassels retainer were disputed, Cassels taking the position that the retainer by CDA was limited to providing advice in the event of a bankruptcy or insolvency of GMC. However, the pleading was read generously by Justice Strathy and allowed to stand. The pleading of negligence was also allowed to proceed. Cassels argued that since each dealer retained counsel in connection with the WDA, there was no proximity or reliance on Cassels nor any causal connection with anything Cassels did (or failed to do) and any damages. However, Justice Strathy referred to the "developing line of authority" permitting a party to assert a claim of negligence against a lawyer where there is no retainer and no direct solicitor-client relationship between the plaintiff and the lawyer.5 He held that it was arguable that Cassels brought itself into a relationship of sufficient proximity to owe the dealers a duty of care, and that the matter was best left for consideration at trial on a full evidentiary record.

Finally, Justice Strathy quickly concluded that the allegations of breaches of the fiduciary obligation of undivided loyalty that are "at the heart of the lawyer-client relationship" were properly pleaded.

Common Issues

In determining whether the claims raised common issues under section 5(1)(c) of the CPA, Justice Strathy noted that the claims arose from a series of events that culminated in May 2009, from a franchise agreement and a WDA that was common to all members of the proposed class, and the conduct of GMC and Cassels that was substantially uniform in relation to all members of the proposed class. Consequently, the proposed common issues with respect to the claims against GMC were held to be appropriate, including:

  • whether GMC was a franchisor within the meaning of the franchise statutes;
  • whether the class members were entitled to the benefit of the statutory duty of fair dealing and if GMC breached the duty;
  • whether GMC breached the dealers' right of association; and
  • whether GMC was required to deliver a disclosure document to the dealers under the WDA, and if so, whether each class member in Ontario, Alberta and PEI is entitled to rescind/cancel the WDA

Of particular note was the approved common issue of whether the Release found in the WDA was void and unenforceable under sections 46 and 117 of the Arthur Wishart Act. With respect to the proposed common issue of whether damages against GMC were to be assessed in the aggregate, Justice Strathy left the issue of aggregate assessment to the trial judge, noting that "this is not a case in which the certification of the action hinges on the availability of an aggregate assessment" and individual assessment would "not be insurmountable."

Similarly, Justice Strathy identified as common to the class members the issues of whether Cassels was in a solicitor/client relationship with the class members, and if it owed a contractual duty, fiduciary duty, or a duty of care to the class and if those duties were breached.

After noting the Court of Appeal's finding in Quizno's Canada Restaurant Corp. v. 2038724 Ontario Ltd. as to the suitability of a franchise claim to class action treatment, Justice Strathy concluded that a trial of the common issues would advance the litigation and a class proceeding was the preferable procedure.

This decision adds to the growing list of franchise claims to have been certified by the courts in recent years.


1. The dealer agreements and WDA incorporated Ontario law. However, the franchisee legislation in Alberta and PEI invalidates contractual terms that exclude the application of the law of that province, and accordingly the law of those provinces was considered to the extent it differed from the Ontario statute.

2. Arthur Wishart Act (Franchisee Disclosure), 2002 S.O. c. 3; Franchises Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. F-23; Franchises Act, R.S.P.E.I. 1988, c. F-14.1

3. The Plaintiff plead that each partner of Cassels knew or ought to have known of the firm's alleged conflict of interest, and asserted a personal claim and served the Statement of Claim personally on each partner.

4. Justice Strathy addressed Rosedale Motors Inc. v. Petro-Canada Inc. [1998] O.J. No. 5461 (Gen. Div.) rev'd [2001] O.J. No. 5368 (Div. Ct.), 909787 Ontario Ltd. v. Bulk Barn Foods Ltd., [1999] O.J. No. 2973 (S.C.J.) rev'd [2000] O.J. No. 3649 (Div. Ct.), Mont-Bleu Ford Inc. v. Ford Motor Co. of Canada, [2000] O.J. No. 1815 (Div. Ct.), 1176560 Ontario Ltd. v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Company of Canada Ltd., [2002] O.J. No. 4781 (S.C.J.) aff'd [2004] O.J. No. 865 (Div. Ct.), 2038724 Ontario Ltd. v. Quizno's Canada Restaurant Corp. (2010), 100 O.R. (3d) 721 (C.A.), 578115 Ontario Inc. v. Sears Canada Inc., [2010] O.J. No. 3921 (S.C.J.) and 1250264 Ontario Inc. v. Pet Valu Canada Inc. 2011 ONSC 297.

5. Citing Robinson v. Rochester Financial Limited, 2010 ONSC 463, CC&L Dedicated Enterprise Fund (Trustee of) v. Fisherman, [2001] O.J. No. 4622 (S.C.J.)

6. Section 4(4) states "any provision in a franchise agreement or other agreement relating to a franchise which purports to interfere with, prohibit or restrict a franchisee from exercising any right under this section [right of association] is void"

7. Section 11 holds that "any purported waiver or release by a franchisee of a right given under this Act or of any obligation or requirement imposed on a franchisor or franchisor's associate by or under this Act is void"

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions