Author archive - nplaw

About the Author


Navarrete Perinot P.C. Offers Franchise Pre-Litigation Mediation Services


The implementation of the Arthur Wishart Act (Franchise Disclosure) has resulted in a dramatic increase in litigation between franchisors and franchisees.  This increase in litigation has been caused by the disclosure requirements imposed on franchisors and the good faith obligations imposed on both parties.

The good faith obligation is critical to the operation of the franchise system and the individual franchise store or operation.  The obligation to deal with each other in good faith and in a commercially reasonable manner is not optional, it is an obligation imposed on both parties by the Act.  The greatest sign of good faith dealing is to try and resolve a dispute before it reaches the litigation stage.

With the cost of litigation running in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, it no longer makes sense for franchisors and franchisees to jump into litigation without giving mediation a chance to salvage the business relationship.

We are a team of litigation lawyers that have litigated against some of the largest franchise systems in Canada.  We understand that to a franchisor the preservation of the brand, consistency across the franchise system and stability, are critical to the operation of the entire franchise system.   We also understand that to a franchisee there is a need to have some type of a return on the initial investment and some sense of control over the day-to-day operation of their business.


What our wealth of experience has taught us is the following:

  1. Litigation results in both the franchisor and franchisee spending hundreds of thousands of dollars in litigation, with very little results to show for that tremendous expense;
  2. Litigation inevitably leads to an end of the franchisor/franchisee relationship and a loss of time and investment for both the franchisor and franchisee.
  3. Disputes could have been resolved early on with the help of a neutral mediator experienced in franchise litigation and law, at a fraction of the cost of litigation.
  4. The litigation impacts the reputation of the franchisor, due to the obligation to disclose the litigation in the franchise disclosure document.
  5. The litigation can financially cripple the cash flow of the franchisee.

In the midst of a dispute, the natural reaction of the parties is to take hard positions against each other.  The franchisor will point to its rights under the franchise agreement and feel that it is in the right.  Similarly, the franchisee will point to its large investment in the franchise and fell that it is in the right.

As a result, the parties are unable to view beyond the dispute and they ignore the larger relationship and the time and money that invested by both parties.   The natural tendency is to ignore the interests of the other party and to focus on your own self-interest.

With the help of our team we will assist you in ensuring that your interests are heard by the other side so that you can get past your respective positions and move towards a creative, long term solution to the franchisor/franchisee relationship.


We will ask both parties to enter into without prejudice discussions to attempt to resolve the dispute.  What this means is that both parties will not be able to use the documents submitted or the conversations held during the mediation against the other side.  All communications will be treated as confidential.

We will require the parties to submit a short three-page outline of the problems that are being experienced, along with any evidence the parties have in their possession.  We will then meet with the parties in a neutral location and hold a half-day mediation to attempt to resolve the dispute and restore the franchisor-franchisee relationship.

In order to avoid a positional mediation we would encourage the parties to attend without lawyers, although the parties are always free to contact their lawyer during the mediation to obtain legal advice.

Our services start at $2,500.00 plus HST, for a half-day mediation.

For further information contact Xavier Navarrete at or at 647.259.1771.

Mayor Rob Ford Relieved as Mayor of Toronto in Conflict of Interest Case

On Monday November 26, 2012, Mr. Justice Charles T. Hackland of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, in declaring Toronto Mayor Rob Fordӳ seat vacant, ruled that Toronto Mayor Rob Ford violated the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act when he both spoke and participated in a council vote regarding a matter in which he allegedly had a pecuniary interest ie. violated Toronto City Council’s code of conduct by soliciting donations to his football charity using city materials. The enforcement of the operation of Justice Hacklandӳ decision is suspended for 14 days giving time to the City of Toronto to make administrative changes as a result of his decision.

For a copy of the decision please see below:

Rob Ford Decision


What You Need to Know Prior to Purchasing a Franchise

Xavier Navarrete and Glen Perinot

As a litigation lawyer, I would estimate that 70% of the franchise work I do is for franchisees that are experiencing problems in operating a franchise or are experiencing problems with the franchisor’s demands. The tragedy is that clients often come to see me after they have already purchased the franchise and often after their life savings have been depleted trying to operate the franchise. Many of the problems experienced by franchisees that I typically encounter could have been avoided, or could have been spotted with a little due diligence by the franchisee, prior to paying money over to the franchisor. Read more

When Anton Piller Orders Go Wrong!

W. Xavier Navarrete

An Ontario court has ordered an applicant to pay damages for trespass and full indemnity costs for executing Anton Piller Order on the wrong party and at the wrong address.

In October 2008, Justice Hoy of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Multimedia Global Management v. Soroudi, [2008] O.J. No. 4383, ordered an applicant to pay damages for trespass and to pay full indemnity costs to an innocent third party. After obtaining an Anton Piller Order (APO), the applicant executed the APO on a gentleman who happened to have the same name as the target respondent (the innocent man was 65 years old, while the target respondent was 35 years old). The APO was also executed at the wrong address and the applicant seized documents outside the scope of the APO Read more

DBC Marine Safety Systems Ltd. v. Canada

Federal Court of Appeal affirms that there is no discretion for a court to interfere with a patent application deemed abandoned for an applicant’s (inadvertent) failure to respond to a requisition in DBC Marine Safety Systems Ltd. v. Canada (Commissioner of Patents) (2008 FCA 256)