Fear mongering begins in Ontario Wishart Act proposed change

November 11, 2010

Some professionals hold fast to their word.

They continue to practice with integrity, dignity, grace and humour, often under extreme conditions.

If faced with insurmountable economic hardships, they choose to leave a field rather than sell-out their principles.

Bev Cline writing for the Globe and Mail attributes the following excerpt to a Sotos LLP partner:

Another concern is that franchisors will essentially be asked “to crystal ball gaze” into the future in creating the educational document, says Allan Dick, a franchise lawyer at Sotos LLP in Toronto. “Currently a franchisor has to disclose, through the disclosure document [as mandated by the Arthur Wishart Act], everything that is material to the opportunity,” says Dick. The disclosure document, he points out, “is not a ‘general’ document; it’s a very specific document for a specific opportunity for a specific franchise.”

So, in terms of the proposed educational document, Dick asks: “If the franchisee is relying on a franchisor who is being forced [in the educational document] to crystal-ball-gaze into the future, to provide information that the franchisor could not know, will this benefit the prospective franchisee?”

The point is that prospective franchisees’ immediate interest and goal is to “look for the best opportunity they can find to be successful in business,” says Dick.

The implied threat to politicians, always sensitive to job loss or creation, is in the last sentence.

In addition, if franchisors are held liable for predicting business prospects in an unrealistic way, says Dick, they may be reluctant to enter into certain markets in the first place.

In WikidFranchise, Risk #17 is 95 per cent of legal fees are paid by franchisors. The full article: before and after I had “Wiki-ed” it (eg. told a story through a case study risk analysis).

Who are you going to trust?

– Thanks to This Isn’t Happiness


Want to Sue? Get an independent 2nd opinion

October 30, 2010

Wise in medicine. Critical in franchise law.

Independent consultants ensure their honesty from pre-trial evaluation (before 1st interview) to settlement.

Any CDN lawyer who can’t work with me is saying a lot about themselves.

Don’t trust in non-verifiable monopoly services.

TEST: How’s your one franchisor: one franchisee relationship working for you?


Would it be better to have no legislation? That’s a no-brainer.

September 29, 2010

The public hearings that led to the Ontario Wishart Act (Franchise Disclosure), 2000 started on March 6, 2000.

  1. The first expert witness was Ms. Susan Kezios from the American Franchisee Association (her testimony, above to right).
  2. Mr. John Sotos was the next of the five expert witness (40 in total :: 4 days :: 4 cities) was a Toronto attorney called (his full testimony, left).

Mr. Tony Martin, a politician from Sault Ste. Marie  asked Mr. Sotos a question:

Mr Martin: Would it be better to have no legislation than to put a piece of legislation in that gives people a false sense of security, given some of the statistics?

Mr Sotos: That obviously is a no-brainer. The purpose of legislation is remedial, it’s to correct a problem. If the legislation doesn’t achieve that, then I think it’s misplaced.

“That obviously is a no-brainer.”

  • summum ius summa iniuria –  The more law, the less justice

The case for repealing disclosure laws

September 25, 2010

Any law exists because those most able to compete for it goes to the political process and wins.

This is how the Ontario franchsie law went in 2000. I was there.

Everyone’s interests were served very well, except the powerless: mom-and-pop franchise investors.

Sure a few attorneys were made multi-millionaires (continue to blackball, block and betray sincere advocates), the franchise bar has reached record numbers (God love those disclosure document revisions!) while the 2nd-worst-chumps, the false protagonists (the franchisors) got  a short-term sales bump but their reputation continues to nose dive.

On any legitimate public policy level, the Arthur Wishart Act is a complete and total failure.

But as a way to launder mom-and-pop life savings via dim-witted franchisors?

Priceless to the true champions of tyranny (the franchise bar legal elite).


Can an empire be saved by shaming investors like Ariel Buk?

August 15, 2010

There are costs involved in maintaining investor confidence and commercial relationships. Some people need to learn to “take one for the team”.

Ariel Buk and Sonia Karabin may need to understand that they should cool down, be quiet and go away about losing a $85,000 deposit on a non-existent Ontario, Canada franchise. They and, by extension, the many hundreds of other “failed franchisees” need to be taught their role in this confidence game by the industry stakeholders: take one for the team or risk being shamed.

1. James Daw presents the story in yesterday’s Toronto Star article,  Ice cream dream becomes nightmare about Mr Buk’s experience with Piazza Gelateria and Café. This is shrewd. For example, Mr. Daw opines:

They [husband and wife] should have looked more closely at the business opportunity, and their decision to use mainly borrowed funds after Buk had lost his job.

They should have considered the minimum $300,000 cost of a lawyer to sue for a refund if things went wrong, and the chances of recovering anything from a relatively young numbered company.

2. Robert Cialdini lists authority as one of Six Weapons of Influence. My experience is that attorneys are given a  lot of authority by new Canadians. Many of us see past their pretensions, BS and fear. [Examples of authority.]

Ben Hanuka of Davis Moldaver LLP is quoted as saying:

“Very few mom-and-pop franchisees ever go to that length (of hiring experts to research a franchise opportunity),” says Hanuka. “It sounds too complicated to them.”

All it well with the world the reader is assured. Go back to sleep because these people get what they deserved. The blame lies with:

  1. the anonymous, individual “other” (mildly retarded immigrant scapegoat) deserved what he got (“your success follows from your blind obedience to authority” dogma)  and not that
  2. stakeholders align their self-interest in maintaining a facade of legitimacy: not a fake, or a Potemkin village scheme which has preyed upon identifiable groups, in plain sight,  since at least 1971.

Social Psychology-based Hypothesis: Elite stakeholders deflect systemic wrongdoing by using the largely-internal mechanisms of On Cooling the Mark Out by Erving Goffman (shame-humiliation effect) while using the public’s widespread fallacy of theBelief in a Just World, BJW (Melvin Lerner, retired University of Waterloo, Canada) in the country’s largest daily newspaper.

Every dying empire resorts to displays of public humiliation.

Why were people crucified in Jesus’ time?
Crucifixion was a Roman custom used on the worst malefactors and rebellious slaves. Judea was a tributary to Rome at that time. It is recorded by the Jewish historian Josephus that after the last rebellion of the Jews and the capture and razing of Jerusalem, the countryside was practically denuded of trees the Romans crucified so many. WikiAnswer

Detail: Crucifixion was often performed to terrorize onlookers into submission. Victims were left on display after death as warnings. Crucifixion was usually intended to provide a death that was particularly slow, painful (hence the term excruciating, literally “out of crucifying”), gruesome (hence dissuading against the crimes punishable by it), humiliating, and public, using whatever means were most expedient for that goal. Crucifixion methods varied considerably with location and time period…

While a crucifixion was an execution, it was also a humiliation, by making the condemned as vulnerable as possible. Although artists have depicted the figure on a cross with a loin cloth or a covering of the genitals, writings by Seneca the Younger suggest that victims were crucified completely nude. When the criminal had to urinate or defecate, they had to do so in the open, in view of passers-by, resulting in discomfort and the attraction of insects. Despite its frequent use by the Romans, the horrors of crucifixion did not escape mention by some of their eminent orators. Cicero for example, in a speech that appears to have been an early bid for its abolition,  described crucifixion as “a most cruel and disgusting punishment”, and suggested that “the very mention of the cross should be far removed not only from a Roman citizen’s body, but from his mind, his eyes, his ears.” Wikipedia

Humiliation is the most unpredictable, violent and destructive human emotion. It can result in many types of loss (see Bob “Bhupinder” Baber, WikidFranchise)


So Ontario, Canada is a worldwide franchise industry outcast? Okay then…

August 11, 2010

Peter Dillon of Siskinds LLP is an expert in franchise law and a practicing franchise lawyer.

In this month’s  edition of Canadian Lawyer magazine an article entitled Ontario courts side with franchisees, Mr Dillon is quoted as believing:

…franchise law and its judicial interpretation by the courts of Ontario has created probably the most perilous jurisdiction in the world in which to conduct franchises,”

The Wishart Act and its appeal court justices have created the “most perilous jurisdiction in the world“?

Mr. Dillon is reported as having sent out this warning:

He concludes his memorandum by advising his franchisor clients that the courts have clearly demonstrated they are favouring the franchisees, which therefore “creates a high degree of risk and uncertainty that will put some franchisors out of business and will deter many others from commencing to do business through franchising.”

Taking it further, he’s quoted as having:

…spoken to many U.S.-based franchises “that want nothing to do with Ontario. In an era where franchising plays a large part in our retail economic engine, it’s a shame to have mechanics at work that seem bent on lowering the horsepower or spiking the engine altogether.”

These are not the first unsubstantiated claims made in rejection of even the most tepid legal franchisee protection provisions nor will they be the last.

Just simply the next new article I added to the WikidFranchise collection.


Where is Atticus Finch when you need him?

April 30, 2010

He certainly isn’t practicing franchise law.

Everyone needs delusions to live their lives.

Just don’t project ideals onto your attorney.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: