Fact Scenario: Clean H20 Ltd. ("Clean") is the operator of a water filtration company which is a franchise of 30 franchises across Ontario specializing in the sale and installation of water filtration devices for residential homes.

Its Richmond Hill, Ontario territory has a corporate owned location, "Richmond Hill Clean H20,"("RHC") for sale to an individual franchisee, which would sell and install water filter systems under the Clean franchise system.

Jian Lee is extremely interested in the RHC franchise for sale, and signs a franchise agreement with Clean and pays the Franchisor a $10,000 deposit.

It turns out that two weeks after signing the Franchise Agreement with Clean, CBC Marketplace does an investigative news TV report about Clean, documenting alleged activities of selling water filters on a door-to-door basis and registering Notices of Security Interests (NOSIs) against owners' property titles on their homes without their knowledge for tens of thousands of dollars for water filters that only cost $100 from Home Depot.

In the CBC TV report, some owners have been forced to pay the inflated debt amounts to remove the NOSI in order to sell their homes or to get bank financing (as banks won't lend any money against the property if there is a NOSI registered on title).

It is 27 days since Jian signed the RHC franchise agreement, and Clean has retained you as counsel and wants to know if Jian Lee can break and get out of the Franchise Agreement and get his deposit back from Clean.

In the meantime, a recent franchisee from the Sudbury RHC location ("Sudbury") Franchise signed an agreement two years ago unaware of the financial and legal troubles of RHC. In that case, several senior citizens that had purchased water filters from Clean and found out later without their knowledge that NOSIs had been registered on their homes by Clean. These disgruntled customers retained a lawyer who has sued Clean for millions in damages, and have also named the sole shareholder of Clean, Amir Tatla, and his wife who is the sole director, Shoshana Tatla, as parties to the lawsuit.

Sudbury alleges that Clean failed to disclose material facts prior to Sudbury signing its Franchise agreement with Clean, and if it had that knowledge as part of the Franchise Disclosure documentation, it would not have signed on as a franchisee of Clean. In the meantime, the province of Ontario has launched a Consumer Affairs investigation with potential penalties against Clean and its directors and officers.

The CEO of Clean, Tommy Chan, has hired you to conduct legal research about all of these issues.

In particular, Tommy wants you to analyze the following: (1) legal liability and likely results in relation to customers suing Clean for NOSIs registered on their properties; (2) Jian and his purchase of the RHC franchise; (3) Sudbury seeking to end the Franchise agreement with Clean and seeking damages from Clean; and (4) how any applicable Ontario franchise law including statute and case law would address the above situations.

Tommy would like you to determine whether there are any remedies available in contract law, consumer protection law (see the Ontario Consumer Protection Act), and franchise law regime (see the Wishart Act) for these parties. And if the remedies are insufficient for the individual homeowners with NOSIs registered against title, how would you suggest changing Ontario Consumer Protection Act to account for the necessary changes to protect consumers?

Instructions A thesis and supporting arguments are necessary to show your analysis. Your analysis ought to examine expectations of contract law in the current regulatory regime, as defined by Franchise legislation, provincial or federal regulators, if applicable, and court decisions. Try to show a legal test, rules, or principles that a court is likely to use when assessing the client's problem. Legislation, common law, and scholarly discussions must go beyond a simple description or overview.

Elaborate your analysis by considering the grounds and potential challenges that your client might face in court. Your argumentation and research skills depend on how well you substantiate and communicate your argument. You must not limit your paper to a summary or description of the law. A foundational part of your essay depends on your ability to find the right sources necessary to discuss the client's case with rigor and support your thesis statement.

Given the fact pattern, choose an essay title. You should narrow your topic to something precise. By focusing your analysis, you have a better chance of elaborating a well-defined argument and avoiding summaries. Where possible, try to discuss your topic's implications or relevancy.

In the discussion of your research paper, consider the following questions:

What is the problem? What issues are involved?

What are the relevant issues and why are they important?

What is your solution to the client's problem?

Make sure you include the following:

A debate or overview of the legal issue;

An explicit thesis statement;

Critical analysis and justified arguments;

Integrates concrete law, principles and examples in your analysis and arguments;

Identifies statutes, cases, or legal principles to address the issues raised in the paper;

Explained the various cases, statutes and/ or text principles involved.

must reference aminimumoftwo cases (Canadian sources), andtwo journal articles