<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>The Litigator - Affleck Greene McMurtry, LLP &#187; Franchises</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/topics/commercial-litigation/franchises/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca</link>
	<description>Competition Law,  Commercial Litigation and Arbitration Updates</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 May 2013 01:52:29 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Tim Hortons Franchisees Must Be Content With Profits from Coffee, Not Food</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/01/tim-hortons-franchisees-must-be-content-with-profits-from-coffee-not-food/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=tim-hortons-franchisees-must-be-content-with-profits-from-coffee-not-food</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/01/tim-hortons-franchisees-must-be-content-with-profits-from-coffee-not-food/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Jan 2013 17:15:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Binetti</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Class Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Class Actions and Other Private Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conspiracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Corporate Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Disputes over Contracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Franchises]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=2014</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Tim Hortons franchisees have lost their challenge to Tim Hortons&#8217; &#8220;Always Fresh&#8221; model that allegedly reduced the profitability of donuts, TimBits, and other food items. In Fairview Donut Inc. v. The TDL Group Corp., the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld a lengthy lower court decision that on the one hand certified a class action against&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/01/tim-hortons-franchisees-must-be-content-with-profits-from-coffee-not-food/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/01/tim-hortons-franchisees-must-be-content-with-profits-from-coffee-not-food/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Philthy McNasty&#8217;s case clarifies franchise limitations periods</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/09/philthy-mcnastys-case-clarifies-franchise-limitations-periods/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=philthy-mcnastys-case-clarifies-franchise-limitations-periods</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/09/philthy-mcnastys-case-clarifies-franchise-limitations-periods/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 Sep 2012 16:45:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Meredith Hayward</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Appeals and Judicial Review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Franchises]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[arthur wishart act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[franchise agreement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[franchise fees]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[notice of rescission]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ontario court of appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[philthy mcnasty]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1714</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Philthy McNasty's did not fare well when the Ontario Court of Appeal recently examined the issue of limitation periods in respect of statutory rescission claims under the Arthur Wishart Act (Franchise Disclosure), 2000 (the "Act").]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/09/philthy-mcnastys-case-clarifies-franchise-limitations-periods/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Competition Law Year in Review 2010</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/05/competition-law-year-in-review-2010/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=competition-law-year-in-review-2010</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/05/competition-law-year-in-review-2010/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 May 2011 17:24:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Binetti</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Franchises]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Year in Review / The Litigator (Print Edition)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DRAM]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=958</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Review of all Canadian Competition Law developments over the past year, plus some US developments, including: Mergers, Criminal, Private Actions, Reviewable Matters, Marketing Practices, The Long Arm of US Antitrust

<b>Top Stories</b>
<ul><li>Indirect purchasers cannot sue</li>
<li>Damages no longer required?</li>
<li>The wired and the wireless</li>
<li>Winds of change</li>
<li>Credit card rules challenged... priceless?</li>
<li>Rebates, savings and gift cards</li></ul>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/05/competition-law-year-in-review-2010/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
