November 23, 2015
Number of closed stores and terminated Canadian franchisees is both unknown and unknowable because of lapdog disclosure rules.
Tim Hortons confirmed that stores across Maine and New York closed on Friday. RENE JOHNSTON / TORONTO STAR FILE PHOTO
An interesting article in Canada’s largest daily newspaper, Tim Hortons closes locations in New York, Maine, (subheadline:
Coffee chain refuses to say if it has closed any Canadian outlets. It has reportedly closed more than 20 stores in the U.S.):
Tim Hortons has closed down many locations across New York and Maine, only a few weeks after reporting a profit of $49.6 million (U.S.).
The coffee chain would not confirm if any Canadian outlets had been closed or how many U.S. stores shut.
And also in a press release:
“As we build the foundation for accelerated growth in the U.S., we have decided to close some restaurants in New York and Maine.
Comment on article by reader “Relax”: Apparently, Tim Hortons has figured it out. The best way to “accelerate growth” in the US is to start by closing stores.
Canadian Franchise Industry Much More Secretive: Franchisors in the United States are required to report the number of stores and franchisees closed, terminated, etc. each year. There is even public access to their Franchise Disclosure Documents (see California’s search template: Tim Hortons USA Inc). In Canada, provincial ministries do not require franchisors to publish this data. So sad for investors or journalists or the captured franchisees’ billions of investment $.
Franchisors have traditionally sent signals to their franchisees on how they would be treated if they’re not seen to be “on the team”. Normally, the most vocal are out first.
Word from Canada is that the franchisees has it that their stores have never been more profitable.
The real prize is on the (surviving but fewer) CDN franchisees’ income statements.
January 13, 2015
Section 4, Right to Associate, Ontario, Canada’s Arthur Wishart Act (Franchise Disclosure) 2000.
As sure as water flows downhill, this will lead to franchisee-led, not lawyer-thwarted:
- trademark-specific WordPress weblog (then a Wikidot.com wiki),
- small groups of franchisees commissioning research (sharing cost information),
- non-lawyer franchise expert coach consulting,
- an independent franchisee association (no franchise bar involvement),
- shared services, supply co-operative(s),
- non-franchise bar case preparation, and
- equity and gross margin protection.
The Right to Associate provision (the de facto CDN standard and what all franchisees in the world aspire to for justice) is one last conceptual obstacle preventing franchisees from taking their appropriate seat at the adult’s table.
Proof?: after 14-15 years, the CDN franchise bar has filtered each attempt to plead Right to Associate (trial and appeal), thereby, defeating the ON justices from activating its potential.
The ON Superior Court of Justice will make the link to Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Cross-posted on the Canadian Alliance of Franchise Operators website (CDNafo.ca)
January 7, 2011
Best chance ever to protect franchise families.
If you won’t act to support pro-franchisee MPP candidates in 2011, Why the hell should they give you what you want in the face of the demands to the contrary by Big Auto, Grocery and Oil, their fat cat lawyers and the Canadian Franchise Association?
You, your spouse and your family want:
- Call your current MPPs constituency office (see here, postal code lookup) and ask for a 10 minute interview. Insist, take your spouse and follow-up in writing.
- Offer to and then donate as a sign of goodwill to (a) your home riding and (b) the Bill 102’s co-sponsors: Jaczek, DiNovo & Miller (time preferably but $ only if lazy).
- Handwrite a note to each party leader’s riding office: McGuinty, Hudak & Horwath.
Stand up because the backroom weasels have been all over Queen’s Park saying that your family doesn’t deserve what little protection that the Wishart Act gives you now.
Need a vehicle, a Tims or a Big Mac this year?
- Ask your local franchisee if he’s going to continue to sit on his hands this time out or will he stand up on his 2 legs with you?
People sacrificed for these democratic rights.
For selfish reasons alone, use them or lose them.
November 14, 2010
Bill 102 is important.
But what’s revolutionary is the way the Ontario courts are back-filling the Wishart Act with real umph.
This judge-made or case law is designed to modify franchisor behavior.
A $50,000 appeal award upheld for mental distress in a low-rent coffee joint?
I understand this is the 1st time a breach of good faith and fair dealing provision has triggered $ on its own. And it was accomplished by a non-“franchise bar” attorney in Ottawa, too.
— Queen’s Park, Toronto Ontario Canada: Home of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario
November 5, 2010
A joint communique will be delivered shortly.
40,000 ON and 76,000 CDN families
— No renewing franchisees were harmed in this post (ie. redacted conference badge).
October 12, 2010
The notion that people need to believe in and trust in their institutions is not a naive, child-like or stupid idea. It’s an evolutionary imperative because humans are social beings.
Our survival depends on a reasonable expectation of the basic trustworthiness of the officers and offices in our instituations.
A modern complex post-industrial knowledge economy requires a high-trust environment. Fairness of opportunity is the business governments are in: not passing laws that enable the the creation and cover-up of consumer swindles.
A country, a provincial parliament or a police force are not a brand.
Franchising as a bully arena is most readily seen when they start to push around people we elect to represent us.
See this coat of arms?
Canada stood for something at one time. People sacrificed a lot (continue to die for, in fact) a principle, not to enable federally regulated financial institutions to drive the lending getaway car.
See this one?
The Legislative Assembly of Ontario: hear the other side. It’s designed to remind us of something. We as citizens are diminished when its taken 40 years to prove that powerful commercial interests can deny the need for, then flip-flop in 2000 when they need a sales boost and then flop-flip(?) saying that any more pre-sale disclosure would “give a false sense of security” for investigating future franchisees.
And this one…
When fraud coppers have to continue to turn away franchise victims (wives of some of their own “brothers”, even), it reduces the trust we have in the value of all police enforcement activities.
When the legitimate authority of the state is debased, we are all diminished.
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).