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".
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.
Yes
No
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.
Yes
No
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.
Yes
No
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.
Yes
No
Current Progress,
0 of 4 answered
