There was one glorious time when the truth about Big Franchising was revealed and recorded

July 25, 2012

QueensParkFour days in 2000.

March 6, 7, 8 and 9.

Public hearings into the franchise relationship. Four days of traveling public hearings: Toronto, Sault Ste. Marie, Ottawa and London. Ontario, Canada. Traveling public hearing: extremely rare, if not unheard of, under the Mike Harris government.

Approved by the former Ontario  Minister Robert Runciman over a beer with Tony Martin at the Queen’s Park members’ bar. Two men who share a love of democracy as expressed in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

I had the tremendous honour of traveling throughout Ontario as before these life stories were twisted into the Arthur Wishart Act (Franchise Disclosure), 2000. I seemed to have made an impression on the politicians.

Of the current MPPs (107), I know 29 of them. One Minister since I was 17 years old. 45 minutes from my house to their House.

It happened once.

It can happen again.

– The Legislative Assembly of Ontario, looking north to the main doors, University Avenue, Toronto Ontario


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

Sotos LLP: The McDonalds of CDN franchisee lawyers?

November 27, 2009

I have learned directly, personally, in-their-armpits relationships from the best in franchising.

Ted Gorski, McDonald’s, CollegePro Painters, Nutri-Lawn, Tony Martin, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, Sam Grange, John Lorinc, Paul Herminston, Katherine Swinton, Canadian Franchise Association, Country Style, Gillian Hadfield, Michael Webster, Jay Harris, etc. They’re all brilliant in their areas of expertise.

When I got into a corner and thought I needed legal help I hired the best I couldn’t afford. John Sotos was my on-and-off-again lawyer from 1998 t0 2000 and I learned a great many things from John and his partner David Sterns. Both John and Michael told me to look at and talk to the banks. Oddly enough, the first lawyer I talked to about franchising in 1982 is now a Ontario Superior Court justice in Barrie. I like lawyers but they’ve got to cover their rent too, you know!

Many franchisees want to fight.

That’s good…and bad at the same time.

Many franchisees think in terms of black and white; now or never; us/them.

That’s good…and bad at the same time.

Many franchisees would rather choose a “white knight” professional instead of a group of franchisees plotting their own course.

That’s not good…and really, really horribly bad.

The McDonald’s U.S.A. president described his corporation as a real estate company with an interest in hamburgers. Let me repeat: McDonald’s is a landlord (to franchisees) with an interest in fast food.

I learned that the economics of modern litigation is very similar.

  1. The franchise industry legal cash flows = 95% by franchisors,
  2. Once the retainer is paid any consultants are shown the door (only one expert, please),
  3. Franchisees are one-shot clients (v. repeat business for franchisors),
  4. Disclosure laws are a God-send for billable hours, and
  5. The industry has a very, very long memory for those that oppose it’s interests.

All lawyers are businesspeople that operate in a near-monopoly on certain words and concepts.

Learning these terms is not hard if you have (1) a learning tool and (2) a willingness to face some difficult facts.

Most let their emotions rule their decision making (ie. denial and fear) but in their defense, aren’t really conscious of doing so. They’ve been conditioned to be on their knees and look to Daddy for acceptance.

Education is the only way out.

WikidFranchise.org


The Value of Knowing which questions to Ask

October 10, 2008

Frank Zaid is a Canadian lawyer with Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP.

1. From his wikipedia page:

He has been listed as one of the leading franchise law practitioners in every published edition of the Canadian Legal Lexpert Directory, the Lexpert/American Lawyer Guide to the Leading 500 Lawyers in Canada.

In the 2005 and 2006 editions of Who’s Who Legal Frank was ranked as one of the most highly regarded franchise lawyers in the world, and as the most highly nominated practitioner outside of the United States.

In the 2006 edition of the Lexpert Legal Directory he was ranked as the most frequently recommended franchise lawyer in Canada and Osler was ranked as one of the most consistently recommended major full service law firms in franchising.

Further under Professional Affiliations:

  • American Bar Association (Forum on Franchising)
  • Canadian Franchise Association (Past General Counsel and past member of the Executive Committee and Board of Directors)

2. Mr. Zaid gave testimony before the Standing Committee on Regulation and Private Members Bills of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario on March 6, 2000 in consideration of Bill 33, Franchise Disclosure Act on behalf of the business law section of the Canadian Bar Association. This bill resulted in Ontario’s first franchise law, Arthur Wishart Act (Franchise Disclosure), 2000.

The Acting Chair (Hon. George Smitherman) exercised his discretion in allowing additional time for questions. I know this because I was in the Committee room listening very carefully to Mr. Zaid. I had just come back from lunch with Susan Kezios and John Sotos.

This is an excerpt from the transcript.

The Acting Chair: We’ve got a few minutes left for questions. We’ll start with Tony Martin.

Questions

Mr Martin: Certainly, your presentation flies in the face of some of the information presented to us, particularly this morning by Susan Kezios from the American Franchisee Association, who suggests other than that franchisor systems flee states where there’s good legislation. I suggest that maybe bad franchisors flee, and who would argue against that?

Were you the counsel for the Pizza Pizza franchisor?

Mr Zaid:
I was one of the counsels.

Mr Martin: Were you the counsel in the Bulk Barn case for the franchisor?

Mr Zaid: I’m involved in that.

Mr Martin:
You’re not the person who sent out the letters of threat to anybody who would intervene in any way in terms of that action?

Mr Zaid: I’m not going to answer that question.

Mr Martin: OK, thanks.

The Acting Chair:
Further questions? Seeing none, thank you very much for your presentation.

Full pdf download

The motto on the Legislature’s Coat of Arms, AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM, challenges the legislators to “Hear the Other Side.” Also note that the Mace (top and crossed on the Shield of Arms) is the traditional symbol of the authority of the Speaker of the Assembly.

Mr. Martin served as the Deputy Speaker of the House at that time. I had the great privilege of acting as a volunteer industry researcher to him.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: