When a Canadian franchisee confesses, Whom does the lawyer really serve?

Every year the Franchise Times magazine publishes a Legal Eagles™ listing.

Who are they and Whom do they Serve?

2011 Canadian Legal Eagles™

  • Joseph Adler, Hoffer Adler LLP, Toronto, ON, Franchisors
  • Jennifer Dolman, Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP, Toronto, ON, Franchisors
  • Paul Jones, Jones and Co., Toronto, ON, Both
  • Edward “Ned” Levitt, Aird & Berlis LLP, Toronto, ON, Franchisors
  • Leonard Polsky, Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP, Vancouver, BC, Franchisors
  • John Rogers, Davis LLP, Toronto, ON, Both
  • John Sotos, Sotos LLP, Toronto, ON, Both
  • Stéphane Teasdale, Fraser Milner (FMC) LLP, Montreal, QC, Franchisors
  • Larry Weinberg,  Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP, Toronto, ON, Franchisors
  • Frank Zaid, Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP, Toronto, ON, Franchisors

Better choose who you talk to because until you pay them, retention letter, etc. there is no solicitor:client relationship [read: confidentiality].


  1. Bay Street rent isn’t paid for by 1/2 hour freebie chats (defending the offending franchisor…maybe),
  2. 95% of all legal work (and almost 100% of repeat business) is paid for by franchisors or their supporters,
  3. no lawyer confesses to only doing franchisee work, and
  4. how 100% of them belong to the franchisor-only trade association, the Canadian Franchise Association (see Lawyers section).

Be cautious of who you confide in because there is an overwhelming bias against franchisees’ interests.

[Franchise Times, click for pdf, p. 15]

One Response to When a Canadian franchisee confesses, Whom does the lawyer really serve?

  1. Carol Cross says:

    The pretense that there is fairness and equity in the franchise arrangement. and the law surrounding and supporting this ugly business model does promote litigation and product for the legal profession. The legal product produced by this business model called franchising has been a boon to the legal profession who certainly want no fair regulation of the sale of this business model called franchising.

    The attorneys feed on both sides of the fence and are thankful for the ignorance of innocent franchisees who believe in the concept of fairness and justice and who will pay to pursue justice in the courts —not understanding that if fairness and justice are not addressed in the terms of the unilateral sales contract, they are out of luck!

    The constructive fraud of this very successful legalized confidence game called “franchising” is only discovered AFTER the sale and the courts support the constructive fraud in order to support the regulatory policy of the government.



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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: