The Value of Knowing which questions to Ask

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.

Advertisements

One Response to The Value of Knowing which questions to Ask

  1. Carol Cross says:

    What is the difference between a statesman and a politician? Who gets to define the law for the “greater good” in Democratic Republics? Who is interested in “Hearing the Other Side” if the other side has no voice or influence to change the ugly status quo that feeds all of the parties except “the other side?”

    Does the law become amoral when it supports immoral, bad faith, and unconscionable contracts that were induced in bad faith by franchisors who premeditate and know that the state of the law will protect them because of the necessity to protect commercial contracts?

    Aren’t most Bar Associations amoral institutions? It’s not a matter of right or wrong in a moral or fair sense but rather what is possible in terms of molding the law to achieve the desired ends —which ultimately have to do with money for the special interests who define the “greater good.” Don’t these amoral attorneys get to the bench and then serve the amoral laws that were passed to protect the special interests? Isn’t amoral law perpetuated because of “res judicata” and public policy, as demonstrated in franchise litigation in the USA and Canada and in the World?

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: