Ben’s key takeaways about the decision in Shoppers Drug Mart Inc. v. Mang

Take 2 minutes to review Ben's key takeaways from this case.  Do you agree with each takeaway? Choose "Yes" or "No".

Question Title

* 1. A claim or defence must be supported (or refuted) with relevant facts and valid legal allegations.  A judge may strike out extraneous information that is designed to add “colour”, is invalid or irrelevant and should not be contained in a claim or defence.   

Question Title

* 2. Franchise and commercial litigation claims should probably not be “do it yourself projects”.  Often, self-represented litigants don’t know or follow the applicable rules and litigation procedure. They end up doing a disservice to their own case.

Question Title

* 3. Allegations of bullying and favouritism are not normally legally relevant in commercial or franchise disputes – unless properly framed in a context of bad faith or related legal grounds. These allegations end up detracting from what the case should really be about: a contractual breach or other legally recognized failure of the business or franchise relationship, and related conduct of the parties.

Question Title

* 4. Bullying and harassment can only be legitimate legal grounds in a claim or defence in a franchise dispute if they are framed properly as bad faith conduct that is tied to a breach of contractual obligations.  Allegations of bad faith conduct need to be carefully pleaded with supporting facts that are tied to the breach.

0 of 4 answered
 

T