A recent Ontario case considered the test for determining
whether deficiencies in a disclosure document are so material so as
to amount to no disclosure at all, thereby permitting rescission
within two years under section 6(2) of the Arthur Wishart
Act (Franchise Disclosure), 2000 (Ontario) (Wishart
Act).1 The decision notes that the test, which
considers whether the deficiencies impair the ability of a
franchisee to make an informed decision, is an objective one, but
which must account for the particular facts of each case.
SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS
In 2611707 Ontario Inc., et al v. Freshly Squeezed
Franchise Juice Corporation, et al,2 the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice assessed a disclosure document
for deficiencies. The Court concluded that the deficiencies, on an
objective basis, were sufficient to deprive the franchisee of the
ability to make an informed decision with respect to its investment
in the franchised business, such that the franchisee was
