Saskatchewan’s new franchise law: where it aligns and where it favours franchisors

From June 30, 2026, Saskatchewan will officially join six other Canadian provinces (Ontario, Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island) in having franchise legislation when the Franchise Disclosure Act (Saskatchewan) (“FDA”) comes into effect. The summary below provides a brief introduction on the key features of the FDA and specific examples which make the FDA somewhat favourable for Franchisors, in comparison with similar legislations in Alberta and Ontario:

Saskatchewan joins six Canadian provinces with franchise legislation from June 30. Dipchand LLP explain what the new law means for franchisors and franchisees.

Application of the FDA (Section 3(3))

Unlike the Arthur Wishart Act (Ontario (“AWA”), which excludes the application of the law to any service contracts with the Crown, the FDA does not exclude service contracts with the Crown or an agent of the Crown.

Service or delivery of notices and documents

Section 6(3) and 7(3) of the FDA currently only provide for personal delivery of the FDD or any notices to be provided under the FDA which is restrictive compared to the AWA which allows for other forms of delivery of documents, including electronic and registered mail. The FDA makes reference to other prescribed methods to be introduced through the Regulations to the FDA. The Regulations have not yet been promulgated.

Effective Date of a Rescission Notice

The effective date of a notice of rescission is on the day it is personally delivered or in accordance a prescribed method provided for in the Regulations according to Section 7(4) of the FDA. This is different to the AWA which has multiple ways of determining the effective date of a rescission notice, depending on the delivery method used.

Additional Defense to a Misrepresentation Claim

The FDA provides two additional defences against a misrepresentation claim made by a Franchisee as compared to the AWA in Sections 9(2)(d) and (e). Section 9(2)(d) allows the Franchisor to defend against the misrepresentation claim by stating that they mistakenly relied on statements made by a public official. Section 9(2)(e) applies if the Franchisor took reasonable efforts to investigate the information extracted from public reports or the statements of public officials. The AWA does not contain these additional defenses.

Substantial Compliance

Section 10 provides a defence for Franchisors against a rescission claim, if the FDD or SMC is compliant with the section on the Franchisor’s disclosure obligation (Section 6 of FDA) and has a technical irregularity or a defect in form, such defect or error is not sufficient to affect the validity of the FDD or SMC. Similar clauses are found in the franchise acts in Manitoba and British Columbia. The AWA in Ontario does not have a similar clause.

No derogation of other rights

The FDA goes further than the AWA by stating in Section 12(2) that a Franchisee is not required to elect between a rescission claim and a statutory action for damages. Section 12(3) states that a Franchisee is not entitled to be indemnified by way of damages for loss recovered through rescission.

Attempt to affect jurisdiction void

Section 13(2) provides that any clause in a franchise agreement that forces submission of disputes for arbitration is void to the extent that it excludes the courts in Saskatchewan.

Waiver of Rights

Section 14(2) of the FDA provides a useful qualification that any waivers or releases of a right under the FDA by a Franchisee in favour of a Franchisor are not automatically void if they are made in settlement of a claim, dispute or action. The AWA does not have the same qualifications , any waiver or release by a franchisee is deemed as void.

The FDA is comparable to the AWA and the franchise legislation in other provinces with some differences that more of than not, are quite favorable for the Franchisor. It remains to be seen how the FDA will be interpreted by courts in Saskatchewan, which will inform how the FDA is applied in practical cases.

Greg Prekupec and Rutendo Muchinguri are franchise lawyers at Dipchand LLP, one of Canada’s leading franchise law firms. The firm advises franchisors and franchisees on all aspects of franchise law, including disclosure, agreements, compliance and dispute resolution.