Article Content
By: Ben Hanuka
Franchise disputes often involve complex relationships and differing levels of experience, financial resources or business and legal expertise between the parties and their counsel. While franchisors frequently possess significant operational and financial resources, this is not universally the case. Franchisees, especially larger multi-unit or master franchisees, may have comparable resources and experience. Conversely, smaller franchisors or franchisees may find themselves at a disadvantage depending on the circumstances. Franchise arbitrations should approach these dynamics with fairness and neutrality, carefully accounting for the unique circumstances and relationships of the parties involved.
Arbitrators play a pivotal role in guiding franchise disputes toward fair and efficient resolutions. By applying thoughtful strategies, they can foster trust in the arbitration process and help ensure equitable outcomes.
Tailoring discovery processes
Discovery is often a crucial element in franchise arbitration, as evidence relevant to the dispute may reside with one or both parties, to varying degrees. Whether dealing with operational data, financial records, or communications, arbitrators must design discovery processes that are proportionate to the complexity of the case. For example:
- Comprehensive discovery may be warranted in disputes involving substantial financial stakes or systemic issues.
- Simpler disputes may benefit from streamlined processes to reduce costs and time.
Arbitrators should remain flexible, adapting discovery requirements to the specific allegations and the evidence needed to address them.
Balancing costs and complexity
Effective arbitration requires balancing the financial realities of the parties with the scale and complexity of the dispute. While smaller franchisees or franchisors may benefit from cost-conscious procedures, more intricate cases might demand additional resources and time to ensure fairness. The focus should be on tailoring the process to the dispute’s demands, recognizing that financial capacity and complexity of the dispute are potentially equally important considerations.
Addressing the dynamics of the franchisor-franchisee relationship
Franchisor-franchisee disputes can vary widely, from ongoing franchise relationships to situations where the parties or one of them wishes to separate, or where they have already parted ways. Arbitrators must take this context into account when crafting procedures. For example:
- Ongoing relationships may require resolutions that enable the parties to continue to work together.
- Terminated relationships might focus more on finality and clarity in the separation.
Understanding the nuances of the relationship helps arbitrators address the needs of the parties effectively.
Confidentiality and systemic implications
Confidentiality is often considered a cornerstone of arbitration, but franchise disputes can blur these boundaries in unique ways. For instance, provincial franchise disclosure laws can be interpreted to require franchisors to disclose the existence or outcomes of arbitration proceedings, challenging traditional assumptions of privacy. Similarly, systemic issues raised during arbitration may have implications for other franchisees or stakeholders within the franchise network.
Franchise arbitration often presents challenges that extend beyond the immediate dispute. Systemic issues can prompt questions about the arbitrator’s role and the balance between addressing individual concerns and broader franchise dynamics. Customizing arbitration processes to reflect the specific needs of the dispute, while remaining mindful of these broader considerations, can help navigate these complexities effectively.
When systemic issues or disclosure obligations arise, transparency—if agreed upon by the parties—can offer certain advantages:
- Shedding light on recurring challenges to benefit the broader franchise system.
- Enabling franchisors to communicate issues across their network to build trust and accountability.
At the same time, maintaining privacy and confidentiality remains crucial in many cases to:
- Protect sensitive operational or financial information.
- Prevent reputational harm and ensure stability within the franchise system.
- Foster open dialogue that encourages collaborative resolutions.
Arbitrators can manage these competing considerations by:
- Clearly outlining confidentiality and transparency expectations in the terms of engagement.
- Limiting disclosures to what is legally mandated or mutually agreed upon.
- Allowing for redaction of sensitive information when disclosure is required.
These considerations underscore an important but often overlooked aspect of arbitration: the potential desire of the parties to address not only the immediate dispute but also its potential broader implications for the franchise system. For discussions on transparency, disclosure, and systemic dynamics to take place, they should be expressly considered and agreed upon by the parties.
Two articles for further reading:
- For lawyers, our recent article “Choosing arbitration in franchise disputes: A guide for lawyers representing franchisees” addresses concerns that franchisees may have with resolving a franchise dispute through arbitration and how they may benefit from doing so.
- For franchisors who want to learn more about approaches available to them for resolving franchise disputes, which include arbitration, “Resolving franchise disputes – a procedural guide for franchisors” provides a good overview of each approach.
Conclusion
Franchise arbitration requires a nuanced approach that considers the complexities of the franchisor-franchisee relationship, the financial and procedural realities of the parties, and – where expressly agreed upon by the parties – the broader implications for the franchise system. By adopting fair and tailored procedures, maintaining impartiality, and addressing emerging issues like transparency and systemic concerns, arbitrators can ensure that the process achieves its goals of efficiency, fairness, and credibility.
—
The information contained in this article is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should not act on this information without seeking professional legal advice from a lawyer experienced in this area. The content in this article may not reflect the most current legal developments, and the application of law can vary in different provinces and territories. As such, the information in this article is not guaranteed to be complete, correct, or up to date. The author and the publisher of this article disclaim all liability for any actions taken or not taken based on any or all of the contents of this site.
The Law Works website offers a vast number of resources by way of blog articles, courses and webinars about franchise, commercial and real estate disputes. Subscribe to our newsletters to stay up to date on the latest information from us.
Law Works offers complimentary initial 15-20 min telephone consultations, which you can book online.
Table of Contents
Ben Hanuka
JD, LLM, CS (Civ Lit), FCIArb, of the Ontario and BC Bars
Highlights:
- JD, LLM (Osgoode '96, '15), C.S. in Civ Lit (LSO), Fellow of CIArb, member of the Bars of Ontario ('98) and BC ('17)
- Principal of Law Works PC (Ontario)/LC (British Columbia)
- Acted as counsel in many leading franchise court decisions in Ontario over the past twenty-five years, including appellate decisions.
- Provided expert opinions in and outside Ontario
- Presented at and chaired numerous franchise and civil litigation CPD programs for over 20 years
- Chair of OBA Professional Development (2005-2006) - overseeing all PD programs
- Chair of Civil Litigation Section, OBA (2004-2005)
Notable Cases:
Mendoza v. Active Tire & Auto Inc., 2017 ONCA 471
1159607 Ontario v. Country Style Food Services, 2012 ONSC 881 (SCJ)
1518628 Ontario Inc. v. Tutor Time Learning Centres LLC (2006), 150 A.C.W.S. (3d) 93 (SCJ, Commercial List)
Bekah v. Three for One Pizza (2003), 67 O.R. (3d) 305, [2003] O.J. No. 4002 (SCJ)