Last year, we discussed the Ontario Superior Court's
decision to substantially dismiss a class action commenced by
former Pet Valu franchisees on summary judgment (here). On the basis that new evidence had
arisen on the motion that could support a new common issue, Justice
Belobaba deferred answering two related issues until argument could
be heard on the potential new issue. The Court recently released
the latest decision in the action (1250264 Ontario Inc. v. Pet Valu
Canada, 2015 ONSC 29), and the final outcome of this
dispute still remains to be seen.
Justice Belobaba ultimately declined to allow the plaintiff
franchisees to add the new common issue in question, as the
evidence arising from the summary judgment was not new, and to
allow an amendment at the present stage of the litigation would
prejudice the defendant.
More importantly, however, he proceeded to decide the question
of whether the franchisor had a duty to provide ongoing disclosure,
based in the duty of good faith and fair dealing imposed by s. 3 of the Arthur Wishart Act.
Although the decision is quite fact-specific (i.e. relying
on the specific language used in the disclosure document and
franchise agreement), Justice Belobaba held that Pet Valu
did have an ongoing duty to disclose the amount of volume
rebates it received, pursuant to the s. 3 duty of good faith and
fair dealing, and that it breached this duty.
One common issue remains to be determined by the Court: what
damages, if any, the franchisor is required to pay for its breach
of this duty of ongoing disclosure. Justice Belobaba held he would
require further submissions to answer that question, including
regarding the limitation period and the quantification of
It's not often that our little blog intersects with such titanic struggles as the U.S. presidential race – and by using the term "titanic" I certainly don't mean to suggest that anything disastrous is in the future.
J.J. v. C.C., is an interesting case in which the court held that an automotive garage owes a duty to minor children to secure the vehicles on the premises by locking the cars and safely storing the car keys...
In Irwin v. Alberta Veterinary Medical Association, 2015 ABCA 396, the Alberta Court of Appeal found that the "ABVMA" failed to afford procedural fairness to a veterinarian undergoing an incapacity assessment.
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).