The Grange franchise investigation stands the test of time

November 2, 2010

Samuel Grange, Q.C. and his 1971 “Report of the Minister’s committee on Franchises”: the Grange Report.

In 1970, the Honourable Arthur Wishart, W.C., M.P.P. (Sault Ste. Marie),  Minister of Financial and Consumer Affairs commissioned a public inquiry into referral sales, multi-level or pyramid sales, and franchises. He appointed Grange to head a public inquiry. The current Ontario law was named in 2000, specifically to point backwards in time to Grange’s independent recommendations.

Even after almost 40 years, Justice Grange cuts through the nonsense.


1. Legislation is to apply to all industries and to all franchises within each industry
2. Prohibition against dealing in franchises except as provided
3. Franchisor to file prospectus setting forth detailed information on scheme
4. Franchisee to have compulsory 48-hour cooling-off period before execution of agreement
5. Franchisee to have right to apply to Tribunal or Court to determine,
(a) whether contract is fair; and
(b) whether conduct of franchisor is fair in circumstances
6. Tribunal or Court to discourage following:
(a) arbitrary termination
(b) arbitrary refusal of assignments or renewals
(c) arbitrary forfeiture of deposits
(d) forced purchases and secret profits
(e) competitive and discriminating practices by franchisors

1. The formation of a separate branch of division with its own Registrar to administer multi-level and franchise matters.
2. Control of advertising
3. Regular renewal of permission to operate to be required
4. Suspension and cancellation of permission to operate
5. Regular inspection of records
6. Provision for escrow of investments or fees to protect investors and franchisees
7. Application of legislation to leases as well as sales

Full Report

It is my impression that the current Ontario judiciary is on same frequency as was retired Appeal Court Justice Grange.

York University’s Osgoode Hall Law School Alumni Association Honours Three Outstanding Members of the Legal Profession

Reverse the onus on good faith

October 8, 2010

The problem with the “good faith, fair dealings” issue is that the little guy (franchisees) have to prove that their franchisor played unfair.

  • How about making the franchisor show they acted acted fairly instead?

I think this is a very clever idea and would prevent much bad behavior.

This was a suggestion brought forward by Gerald Nori of Wishart Law Firm LLP in 2000.

I think it’s interesting that in that circumstance the Grange report does a reverse of onus. It says there has to be fair dealing, and if there isn’t fair dealing, then it’s up to the franchisor to show, and I quote, “that the contract between the parties was fair.” In other words, the onus shifts, not from the franchisee to prove they were treated unfairly but to the franchisor to prove that franchisor dealt with this individual fairly. I think that’s an extremely important concept. It goes on to say that the franchisor’s conduct was “equitable in the circumstance.” So you have this onus on the franchisor, at that point, to prove they dealt with this person fairly.

And in response to a question By John O’Toole that this may increase litigation, Mr. Nori was firm in the opposite direction:

I would see it as just the opposite. I would see it as the big guy now having to come into court with all the resources and proving that the treatment was fair under the circumstances. That’s a tremendous onus for the little guy to prove. The other thing is that the documentation is never there. The documentation is always in head office, and you never know whether you’re getting the whole story. So I think that’s an extremely important concept.When I spotted that in the Grange report, I thought, “Boy, there’s something that really would have some meaning in this legislation to equalize the playing field,” because it is tremendously unequal.

Mr. Nori’s reference to the Grange Report under (see under Legislative Approach, (iii.) Contractual v. equitable approach  section) is from 1970:

3. In these dealings also, placing the burden upon the franchisor to prove,
(a) that the contract is fair; and
(b) that the franchisor’s exercise of his rights under the contract is justified in the circumstances.

“Justified” is the absence of opportunism. The test for opportunism is: Would the franchisor have likely made this decision if it were their own assets at risk?

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)


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: