Dramatic expansion of liability for franchisors in Canada – the duty to promote and enhance your brand

The Dunkin' decision has the potential to become a landmark decision that imposes additional obligations on franchisors and that develops new law in the area of franchisor-franchisee relations.

McMillan LLP
June 1, 2012

Dramatic expansion of liability for franchisors in Canada – the duty to promote and enhance your brand
W. Brad Hanna, FCIArb., Laura Stefan


The Quebec Superior Court has just dramatically expanded the scope of liability for franchisors in Canada. In Bertico Inc. et al. v. Dunkin' Brands Canada Ltd. ("Dunkin'")1 the Court held that a franchisor is required to promote its brand, fight off competitors and protect its market share for the benefit of the franchisees.

The Dunkin' decision has the potential to become a landmark decision that imposes additional obligations on franchisors and that develops new law in the area of franchisor-franchisee relations.

We explain the Dunkin' case, and the significance of the ruling, below.

The facts
The plaintiffs, 21 former Dunkin' Donuts franchisees, sued the franchisor for its failure to protect and enhance the Dunkin' Donuts brand in Quebec.

^In the early nineties, Dunkin' Donuts was the market leader in Quebec, both by total sales and number of stores (over 250). It had dominated the Quebec fast-food donut and coffee market for over 50 years. By the mid-nineties, however, Tim Hortons was making an aggressive push into Quebec. In 1996, the franchisees alerted the franchisor about their concerns that Tim Hortons was essentially eating their lunch in Quebec, and asked for a recovery plan to address the problem. The franchisor implemented a remodelling program in response, but the economics of the program were not favourable to franchisees and only a handful invested in the facility improvements.

By 2003, Tim Hortons had completely supplanted Dunkin' Donuts as the industry leader in Quebec. Only 41 Dunkin' Donuts stores operated in Quebec by 2008, and approximately 11 stores remained at the time of the decision. By contrast, Tim Hortons increased from 60 locations in 1995 to 308 by 2005. During that same period, virtually all Dunkin' Donuts franchisees in Quebec suffered stagnant sales (and most closed their doors) in spite of a growing fast food market.

The plaintiffs sued the franchisor for negligence and breach of contract, claiming that the franchisor had made marketing, advertising and management errors that damaged the brand and that the product offerings were unsuitable for the Quebec market. In essence, the plaintiffs alleged that the franchisor failed to address the competition presented by Tim Hortons, and that it allowed Tim Hortons to capture the market and render their franchises worthless. The plaintiffs sought damages of $16.4 million as a result.

The franchisor denied any breach of its obligations and alleged that the franchisees themselves were responsible for the decline of Dunkin' Donuts, claiming, among other things, that the franchisees failed to operate clean and renovated establishments. The franchisor also defended on the basis that it is neither an insurer of the franchisees' businesses nor a guarantor of their success. The franchisor also claimed that releases signed by some franchisees who participated in the remodeling program barred their claims.

The decision
In a rather terse 43-page decision, the Court found in favour of the plaintiffs and awarded the full amount of their $16.4 million claim. The Court observed that "Allowing Tim Hortons to capture the lion's share of the Quebec Fast Food donuts and coffee market between 1995 and 2003 was a huge and costly mistake", and concluded that the franchisor had breached both its express contractual obligations as well as those that are implicit in franchise agreements by their very nature.

The Court relied upon provisions in the franchise agreement2 and the preamble of a subsequent amendment to conclude that the franchisor "had assigned to itself the principal obligation of protecting and enhancing its brand. It failed to do so, thereby breaching the most important obligation it had assumed in its contracts. It must accept the consequences of such a failure".

Beyond finding that the franchisor was expressly required to protect and enhance its brand, the Court relied on a Quebec Court of Appeal decision3 for the proposition that franchisors are also bound by implied obligations which are "incident to" franchise agreements by their nature. Quoting the Quebec Court of Appeal's decision, the Court confirmed that:

The franchisor is bound to furnish to its franchisees any tools necessary to, if not prevent economic losses, at least minimize their impact on the franchisees. […] the franchisor must act in concert with the franchisees to develop an adequate commercial response allowing the franchisees to minimize their losses and to reposition their business in an evolving market.

The Court further observed that franchisors are bound by the duty of good faith and loyalty to work in concert with their franchisees.

The Court accepted the plaintiffs' evidence that the franchisor had failed to adequately consult with, support and assist franchisees, lacked corporate stores to test products and train staff, had a high turnover of executives and not enough business and operations representatives to adequately service the franchises, and had failed to remove underperforming franchisees from the system.

The Court expressed its ultimate conclusion in strong language:

But the greatest failing of all was [franchisor's] failure to protect its brand in the Quebec market. No doubt the host of failings chronicled by the Franchisees contributed to the collapse of the Dunkin Donuts' brand in Quebec. A successful brand is crucial to the maintenance of healthy franchises. However, when the brand falls out of bed, collapses, so too do those who rely upon it. And this is precisely what has happened in this case.

This particular breach was not the result of a single act or omission… It was a failure over a period of a decade… to protect the brand brought about by a multiplicity of acts and omissions occurring during the period. Brand protection is an ongoing, continuing and successive obligation (emphasis added).

While the Court confirmed that a franchisor is not an insurer or guarantor of the success of its franchisees, it nonetheless held that "[the franchisor] is responsible to them for the harm caused by its failure" to enhance and protect the brand.

Implications of the decision
The decision in Dunkin' expands the scope of liability for franchisors dramatically. Although never mentioned expressly anywhere in the liability portion of the decision, the Court appears to have employed a fundamental breach approach4. In essence, the Court found that the franchisor, by not addressing the in-roads being made by Tim Hortons and allowing the Dunkin' Donuts brand to collapse in Quebec, substantially deprived the plaintiffs of the benefits (having a saleable brand) they expected from being franchisees.

Regrettably, particularly given the potential ramifications of the decision, the Court's reasoning is much abbreviated.5 Consequently, it is difficult to draw a bright line around the type of franchisor conduct or inaction that will result in liability, and that which will not. Among other things, the Dunkin' case offers no demarcation about:

  • When the principle that franchisors are not the insurers or guarantors of the success of their franchisees (as the Court at least recognized) gives way to franchisors being held liable for their failure to adequately promote the franchise system;
  • How much market share must be lost for a court to conclude that the franchisor failed to address the problem or failed to adequately promote its brand for the benefit of franchisees; and
  • What specifically must a franchisor do to demonstrate that it has complied with its obligations to promote the brand, particularly when the franchisor suffers a loss of market share to a competitor despite its efforts to address same.

Obviously, the dramatic demise of the Dunkin' Donuts brand in Quebec, coupled with the complete failure of over 200 franchisees in the province, drove the result in the decision. The decision should arguably be restricted in its application to only those franchise systems that suffer a similarly disastrous fall from grace.

The franchisor will be appealing the decision.

by W. Brad Hanna and Laura Stefan

1. The decision was rendered on June 21, 2012 and was made public on June 25, 2012.

2. The most significant of these provisions is s. 3.C. of the franchise agreement, which provided: "[The franchisor agrees] to continue its efforts to maintain high and uniform standards of quality, cleanliness, appearance and service at all DUNKIN DONUTS SHOPS, thus protecting and enhancing the reputation of DUNKIN DONUTS CANADA, DUNKIN DONUTS OF AMERICA INC. and the demand for the products of the DUNKIN DONUTS SYSTEM and, to that end, to make reasonable efforts to disseminate its standards and specifications to potential suppliers of the FRANCHISEE upon the written request of the FRANCHISEE" (emphasis added).

3. Provigo Distribution Inc. c. Supermaché A.R.G. Inc., [1998] R.J.Q. 47 (C.A.), p. 61.

4. The Court referred once to the concept of fundamental breach in its analysis of the franchisor's cross-claims for arrears of royalties and other amounts, stating that "[…] when contracts are fundamentally breached by one party, the other party cannot be held accountable for a subsequent breach by the prejudiced party."

5. The Court's actual analysis of the franchisor's liability is exceptionally brief (about 5 pages), particularly given that the trial lasted over 70 days.

For more information on this topic, please contact:
Toronto W. Brad Hanna 416.865.7276 ac.nallimcm|annah.darb#ac.nallimcm|annah.darb
Toronto Laura Stefan 416.865.7840 ac.nallimcm|nafets.arual#ac.nallimcm|nafets.arual

A cautionary note
The foregoing provides only an overview and does not constitute legal advice. Readers are cautioned against making any decisions based on this material alone. Rather, specific legal advice should be obtained.

© McMillan LLP 2012

Download file


Brought to you by WikidFranchise.org

Risks: 1,001 ways to make your life miserable, 100 per cent of settlements have gag orders, 2 per cent of valid claims make it to Trial, Able to finance and sell negative cash flow franchise on crooked appraisals, Abusive relationships of all kinds affects people deeply, Ad hominem attack, Advertising fund buys franchisor’s assets, Advertising fund use disagreements, Award-winning franchisees, Arthur Wishart Act (Franchise Disclosure), 2000, Canada, Ban waivers of legal rights, Bandwagon effect, Blame the victim, Brand backlash: franchisees suffer because brand owners screw up, Breach of contract, Broken relationships, ruined lives and alienated children, Can’t sue, Class action lawsuits are an unproven form of remedy, Class action lawsuits benefit lawyers, not franchisees, Class action only as good as the lawyers involved, Class-action dead end, Coerced waiver of legal rights, self, Contracts seen as unenforceable or void, Court decision favorable to franchisees, David and Goliath story, Debt traps, Deceptive business practices, Externalities: cheap business decision when someone else pays, Extortion, Feudal relationships, Franchisor abandonment, Franchisor chooses to do nothing when told of investor losses, Franchisor negligent in not protecting tradename, Franchisor will appeal decision to gain time, FranWhack: a system that is not investment-worthy, Fraud, renovation, Ideas once outrageous are now considered normal, Imbalance of information and power, Incompetent or predatory: for the small business investor, the outcome is the same, Indemnification provisions, Independence, Independence: time to break the chain, Independent businesses much higher profit than franchised ones, Independent businesses survive longer than franchised ones, Individuals with a very successful career history, Ineffective marketing, Infamous trademark system, Investment made during stressful life event, Justice delayed is justice denied, Knew or could have reasonably been expected to know, Lawsuits, group, Lease controlled by franchisor, Lease margins are an important source of franchisor revenue, Lease obligations make franchisees pay even if not in business, Leasehold improvements worth next to nothing, Liar Loans, Live by the lawsuit, die by the lawsuit, Loan repudiation, Loan-broker fraud, Lower quality franchisees, Ludicrous demands, Mad as hell not going to take it anymore, Massive defaults, Misrepresentations, Mom-and-Pop franchisees at greatest risk, Money pit franchise, Most lucrative form of commercial lending, franchising, Must buy only through franchisor (tied buying), Name and shame campaign, No franchisor support, Misrepresentation, Only 3 ways out: resell to next loser, independence & be sued or abandon and go bankrupt, Only opening new stores for the quick cash grab, Opportunism Test: If asset ownership were reversed, would decision likely change?, Opportunism: contract creates powers which are used to strip investor value during relationship, Opportunism: self-interest with deceit, Past the Tipping Point of public contempt for franchising, Pawns in a game they can't win, Personal guarantees cause good money to go after bad, Piling on: franchisor can afford a few awards but not hundreds, Polishing a turd of an argument, Predatory actions, Predatory franchise lending, Predatory lending, Protect gross negligence, wanton recklessness and intentional misconduct, Rebranding financed by adding more government guaranteed loan, Rebranding is a great way to raise franchisor revenue, Relative of franchisor owns construction company, Renewal of contract contingent on franchisee waiving all legal rights, Renting a business causes problems down the road, Restrict gag orders, Risk much higher for franchisee than independent business, Same-store sales drop, Scapegoating, Secret kickbacks and rebates, Selling franchisee won’t sell a new franchisee a financial time bomb, Should anyone trust anything associated with franchising anymore?, Sign away human rights and legal remedies, Statute of Limitations, Ontario: 2 to 15 years, Stores shuttered, Success or failure is within the direct control of the individual franchisee, Sue first and ask questions later, Sue the bank, Suppliers and landlords act as if they were the franchisor, Supply margins are a hidden added royalty payment, System designed to fail for franchisees, System is collapsing, Tied contracting, Tip of the iceberg, Trademark, Tremendous desire to warn others, Trial decision always appealed, Truth, Unproven business model, Unilateral changes in business model drive franchisees' profits down, Unsafe at any Brand?, Unsophisticated buyers, Volume rebates, Waiver of legal rights, War of attrition, When the franchisor tanks, so does the franchisee, Who selected these allegedly moron franchisees in the first place?, Why franchisors sublease to franchisees, Why should we care? It's not our money., Will work even when Variable costs > than Selling price, You may not be the 1st but you could be the next, Canada, 20120601 Dramatic expansion

Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License