Tim Hortons Franchise Cost, Revenue & Review 2026
- Investment
- $988K – $3.3M
- Disclosed sales
- partial, no system average
- SBA charge-off
- 0.0%
- on 26 loans
Data from FDD filing + SBA 7(a) records
Analysis by FranchiseVerdict Research · Methodology
Tim Hortons is a Canadian quick-service coffee-and-bakery franchise known for coffee, donuts, Timbits, and breakfast. Franchisees run cafes managing food and beverage prep, drive-thru and counter service, and staffing.
FranchiseVerdict summary · 2026
A Tim Hortons franchise requires a total initial investment of $988K – $3.3M, including a $25K – $50K franchise fee and an ongoing 4.5% royalty[2]. The 2026 FDD on file does not yield a unit-revenue figure we can publish. SBA 7(a) loans show a 0.0% charge-off rate across 26 loans[1]. FranchiseVerdict grade: A (Strongest tier), an editorial assessment, not investment advice. Run a live ROI scan →
Sources, dates and evidence
FDD issued: 2026 filing · Data extracted: · Last cited check: · Staleness risk: low - the current year's filing
Evidence: strong✓ Investment (Item 7)✓ Item 19 status✓ Units and owners (Item 20)✓ SBA loan coverage✓ Litigation (Item 3)✓ Financial statements (Item 21)✓ Franchisor identityhow this is scored5 of 5 headline figures on this page cite a page of the filing.
Overview
- Investment
- $988K – $3.3M
- 92nd pct Service Resta…
- Avg gross sales
- N/A
- Royalty
- 4.5%
- 11th pct Service Resta…
- Units
- 693
- 91st pct Service Resta…
- SBA charge-off
- 0.0%
- % of SBA 7(a) loans not repaid · median varies by category
Quick verdict · Quick-Service Restaurants · color = vs category peers
Green = favorable by >10% vs Quick-Service Restaurants median · No shading = within ±10% · Red = unfavorable by >10% · Source: FDD filings + SBA 7(a)
Data from public FDD filings and SBA records. Not financial advice. Methodology
Bottom line
- COSTTotal investment $988K – $3.3M including a $50K franchise fee, 4.5% ongoing royalty.
- RETURNSItem 19 reports outlet revenue, but not in a form that yields a per-outlet average we can compare across brands.
- RISKVerdict A (Strongest tier), verdict score 86/100 (higher is better). SBA loan charge-off rate of 0.0% across 26 loans (well below the franchise average, based on all SBA 7(a) franchise lending, 2010–2025).
- GROWTHPositive: net +29 franchised outlets in the latest year (42 opened, 2 closed) (Item 20).
- LEGAL17 litigation matters disclosed in Item 3, higher than typical. Of the 15 listed on this page, 2 name the franchisor itself, 13 its parent, affiliates or predecessor. Pending claims are allegations, not findings.
Item 1 · who you're contracting with
The Franchisor
Corporate structure & franchisor financials
- Legal entity
- Tim Hortons USA Inc.
- Parent company
- Restaurant Brands International Limited Partnership (RBILP)
- FDD Item 1, page 10 of the 2026 FDD
- Ultimate parent
- Restaurant Brands International Inc. (RBI)
- FDD Item 1, page 10 of the 2026 FDD
- CEO title
- Director, Chief Financial Officer and Vice President of Tim Hortons
- Sami Siddiqui
- Incorporated in
- Florida (originally Delaware, changed December 2017)
- HQ
- 5707 Blue Lagoon Drive, Miami, Florida 33126
- Auditor
- KPMG LLP
- Audited financials
- Franchisor revenue
- $7.0B
- vs $8.4B prior year
Same owner · FDD Item 1, page 10
3 other brands on this site name Restaurant Brands International Inc. (RBI) as parent or ultimate parent in their own FDD.
Grouped by the owner's name as each filing prints it (this page: the 2026 FDD). Spelling variants of the same group may be listed apart; a brand is never grouped with an owner its filing does not name.
Overview
About
- CEO
- Sami Siddiqui
- Headquarters
- FL
- Founded
- 1984
- FDD year
- 2026
- States available
- 11
Can you afford it, and what does the money buy?
Entry cost runs 343% above the typical quick-service restaurants franchise.
Source: FDD 2026 · Items 5–7
FDD Item 7 · 2026 filing
Initial investment breakdown
| Cost component | Low | High |
|---|---|---|
| Initial franchise fee | $50K | $50K |
| Working capital (3–6 mo) | $25K | $42K |
| Equipment, build-out, other | $913K | $3.2M |
| Total initial investment | $988K | $3.3M |
Source: Tim Hortons 2026 FDD, Items 5 and 7[2]. “Equipment, build-out, other” is computed as total minus disclosed line items above.
Item 7 · what it costs to open + operate
The Vitals
- Total investment
- $988K – $3.3M
- Bottom third — review vs category
- Liquid capital req'd
- $25K – $42K
- Middle of category vs category
- Franchise fee
- $25K – $50K
- Bottom third — review vs category
- Royalty
- 4.5%
- Tiered by sales volume · typical 6–8%
- Ad fund
- 4.0%
- typical 3–5%
- Total fee load
- 8.5%
- vs 9–13% typical
Ongoing fees · Item 6
| Fee | Amount |
|---|---|
| Royalty | 4.5% of gross sales |
| Marketing / ad fund | 4.0% of gross sales |
| Technology fee | $1K |
| Transfer fee | $25K |
| Inventory (initial) | $7K – $14K |
| Total fee load | 8.5% of rev |
What do units actually make?
Source: FDD 2026 · Item 19
ROI & LBO modelsSingle-unit · 25-unit portfolio · editable
No Item 19 revenue figure for Tim Hortons is on file. The return models need a revenue figure to start from, and the operating costs that turn gross sales into a profit are in no FDD. Enter your own and the calculator runs on your assumptions — nothing here is modelled until you do.
Returns model · single-unit ROIC
What would one Tim Hortons unit return on the cash you put in?
Illustrative category typicals — not sourced to any filing, survey or sample. Replace them with figures from franchisee validation calls before you rely on the output.
Unlevered ROIC · per unit
Your modelled return on total invested capital, before any debt financing.
—
An FDD discloses gross sales, not profit. We hold no sourced figure for annual revenue, COGS, labour, rent / occupancy and other operating costs, and will not substitute an assumed one. Enter your own and the model runs on your assumptions.
These models are for research and scenario planning only. Not investment advice. Actual results depend on your specific location, management, and market conditions. Consult a franchise attorney and accountant before signing any franchise agreement.
Item 19 · Source: 2026 FDD
Financial Performance
Item 19 reports outlet revenue, but not in a form that yields a per-outlet average we can compare across brands. We omit it from rankings.
Item 19 · by group
What the filing does disclose
Item 19 of this FDD reports performance in more than one group. We publish no single average for this brand; the groups the filing does disclose are listed below, quoted from its own Item 19 table.
Each row below is quoted from the FDD's own Item 19 table. Gross sales are not profit.
Item 19 detail
shop type
| Segment | Sample | Avg |
|---|---|---|
| 2025 Franchised Standard Shops - Monthly Gross Sales | 585 | $108K |
cost ratio
| Segment | Sample | Avg |
|---|---|---|
| 2025 Standard Shops - COGS % of Gross Sales | 510 | — |
| 2025 Standard Shops - Labor % of Gross Sales | 510 | — |
same shop sales growth
| Segment | Sample | Avg |
|---|---|---|
| 2024-2025 Same Shop Sales Growth (Total Standard incl New Model) | 579 | — |
Operator outlook
What the numbers say
Data-driven interpretation of this brand's financial disclosures, fee structure, and system trajectory.
Fee burden
Total ongoing fee load of 8.5% (near the Quick-Service Restaurants median).
Disclosure
Item 19 reports outlet revenue, but not in a form that yields a per-outlet average we can compare across brands.
Operator retention
System roughly stable (+4.2% 3-year CAGR) with 693 units.
Source: FDD Item 19 financial performance representations and publicly filed FDD data. Past performance is not indicative of future results. Verify all figures with the franchisor and current franchisees before making any investment decision.
vs Quick-Service Restaurants medians
How Tim Hortons Compares
Category median of published Quick-Service Restaurants brands that report the figure; the middle half spans the 25th to 75th percentile and n counts the brands behind it. Medians are used because a few very large systems pull an average far from the typical brand. Revenue is disclosed gross sales, not profit.
Is the system healthy?
Source: FDD 2026 · Item 20
Unit growth
Item 20 · unit dynamics
The Growth Chart
- Total units
- 693
- Opened
- 42
- Last reporting year
- Closed
- 2
- Terminated
- 0
- Franchisor ended the franchise (per Item 20)
- Non-renewed
- 10
- Term expired, not renewed (per Item 20)
- Turnover rate
- 3.0%
- Company-owned
- 24
- Corporate units in the system
- % franchised
- 97%
- vs corporate-owned
- Net growth (3-yr)
- +4.2%
- Net unit change over 3 years
- 3-yr CAGR
- +4.2%
- Compounded over last 3 years
Last fiscal year · Item 20 exits and transfers
- Terminated
- 0
- Not renewed
- 10
- Transferred
- 4
- Reacquired
- 1
- Franchisor bought back
- Signed, not yet open
- 0
- 0.00 per open outlet · Item 20 Table 5
- Projected new
- 50
- Franchisor's next-year forecast
Year-over-year franchised unit counts and net change. Source: FDD Item 20.
Item 20 · 5 states with active franchisees
The Territory Map
Derived from franchisee contact records. Shows states with at least one current operator. Not where the franchisor is registered to sell new units (that data is re-extracting in a future refresh).
States derived from franchisee contact records (FDD Item 20). Shows states with at least one current operator on file. Full state registration data (Item 12) will appear on a future FDD refresh.
Where the owners are · Item 20 owner list
80 current owners across 5 states.
- MI 63
- ME 7
- GA 5
- IN 3
- KY 2
Counts only, from the list the franchisor prints in Item 20. Names and phone numbers are for your own due diligence and are not shown here.
SBA loan performance
Government records
SBA Loan Data
Aggregated from SBA 7(a) and 504 loan disclosures, public data unique to FranchiseVerdict.
- Total loans
- 26
- Loan volume
- $14.6M
- Median loan
- $350K
- 50th percentile
- Charge-off rate
- 0.0%
- on 26 loans · rates vary by category · see methodology
Historical SBA 7(a) lending data, not predictive of future performance. How SBA charge-off rates are calculated
- Repayment rate (PIF)
- 100.0%
- 5-yr charge-off
- N/A
- Loans approved 2021+
- Active lenders
- 14
- Defaults
- 0
- Typical loan rate
- 6.3%
- avg rate to borrowers
- Franchised industry avg
- 10.8%
- brand beats franchise avg ↓
- Jobs supported
- 753
- 5.1 per loan
- Lender concentration
- 15%
- top lender's share
Borrower mix: 67% went to startups / new businesses, 33% to established operators
Franchise vs independent — in limited-service restaurants, franchised businesses charge off at 10.8% vs 10.0% for independents — franchising is associated with 8% higher SBA default risk in this category.
Vintage analysis
Tim Hortons charge-off rate by loan vintage
Top lenders financing Tim Hortons franchisees
Showing 3 of 14 lenders. The full breakdown — every lender, state distribution, interest rates & risk ratings — is in the SBA Lending Report below.
Explore lender portfolios on Bank Reports or regional data on State Reports.
Lender network · 7(a) + 504
SBA Lending Report
Full lending analysis for Tim Hortons from SBA 7(a) FOIA data.
- Principal loss rate
- 0.0%
- Avg SBA guarantee
- 72%
- Avg interest rate
- 6.32%
- Lender concentration
- 15.4%
- Job velocity
- 5.1 per $100K
- NAICS benchmark
- 8.7%
- NAICS 722513
- Jobs supported
- 753
Top SBA lendersTop lender holds 15% of loans
| # | Lender | Loans | Volume | Default % |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | KeyBank National Association | 4 | $912K | 0.0% |
| 2 | The Huntington National Bank | 4 | $745K | 0.0% |
| 3 | Waterford Bank, National Association | 3 | $1.1M | 0.0% |
| 4 | Isabella Bank | 3 | $991K | 0.0% |
| 5 | Nicolet National Bank | 2 | $619K | 0.0% |
| 6 | Citizens Bank, National Association | 2 | $980K | 0.0% |
| 7 | Manufacturers and Traders Trust Company | 1 | $339K | 0.0% |
| 8 | Five Star Bank | 1 | $425K | 0.0% |
| 9 | Comerica Bank | 1 | $542K | 0.0% |
| 10 | JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association | 1 | $110K | 0.0% |
Geographic failure vector
| State | Loans | Defaults | Rate |
|---|---|---|---|
| MIMichigan | 15 | 0 | 0.0% |
| NYNew York | 7 | 0 | 0.0% |
| NJNew Jersey | 2 | 0 | -- |
| DEDelaware | 1 | 0 | -- |
| VAVirginia | 1 | 0 | -- |
SBA 7(a) lending trend
Borrower profile
Source: SBA 7(a) + 504 FOIA loan-level data, matched by FranchiseVerdict
With a 0.0% charge-off rate across 26 loans, banks have historically viewed this brand favorably for lending.
What could kill this investment?
SBA loans charge off at 0.0% — 100% below the 16.0% national norm, i.e. lower lender-observed risk.
Source: SBA 7(a) FOIA · FDD Items 3, 21
Risk analysis
FranchiseVerdict rating + FDD Items 3, 4, 8, 16, 21
Risk & Legal
Large system (693 units) with 12 pending cases against RBI/TDL/affiliates (mostly not THUSA directly) — routine for a system of this scale and against a parent with $5.16B equity and $776M net income. Financials are parent-level and strong; the litigation count is normal relative to size, leaving essentially one minor governance concern.
Litigation (Item 3)
Subject: the franchisor is a named party (defendant).
Multiple pending cases against RBI/TDL/affiliates (not THUSA directly as party in most): Olympia Tile breach of contract; Quebec franchisee class action re: duty of assistance; consumer class action re: Roll Up To Win promotion; price-gouging class action re: non-dairy surcharges; Quebec franchisee termination dispute; Delaware Carrols shareholder derivative suit; California privacy/cookie tracking class action; Ontario chicken supplier dispute; BC drip-pricing class action; Burger King no-poach antitrust class action (ongoing since 2018). Several concluded settlements including no-poach multistate AG settlements. THUSA states it is not a party to most pending litigation.
Bankruptcy (Item 4)
None disclosed
Audited financials (Item 21)
Yes · KPMG LLP
Franchisor revenue (Item 21)
Franchisor entity revenue (not unit-level)
Figures are consolidated Restaurant Brands International Inc. (RBI) financials in USD millions (Exhibit C), not Tim Hortons USA standalone; converted to dollars.
ⓘ These are the parent company's consolidated financials (the parent guarantees the franchisor), not this brand's standalone results — the figure reflects the whole corporate group, not this brand alone.
Supplier relationship · Items 8 & 16
- Franchisor sells you products: Yes
- Kickbacks from required suppliers: Yes
- Must buy proprietary products: Yes
- Restricted to system-approved products: Yes
- Can negotiate own supplier terms: No
Score breakdown · what drove the 86 / 100 verdict
- 01HIGH12 litigation matters but against RBI/TDL/affiliates, routine for 693-unit system
- 02MINORParent-level financials strong: $5.16B equity, $776M net income on $9.4B revenue
- 03MEDNo bankruptcy, no going-concern, audited, Item 19 disclosed
Severity inferred from the FDD text · not a regulatory classification
Litigation case detail17 matters · Item 3
Litigation cases
The franchisor
Concluded (2)
Tim Hortons USA, Inc. v. Tim-Minn, Inc. et al.
settledThird-party plaintiff · filed 2017-12-05 · U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida · 17-24395-CIV-MORENO
“Tim Hortons USA, Inc. v. Tim-Minn, Inc. et al., (Case No. 17-24395-CIV-MORENO), U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, filed December 5, 2017, voluntarily dismissed December 11, 2017. THUSA sued Tim-Minn Inc. and 8 related corporate entities (collectively “Defendants”) for money damages for breaches of written agreements between THUSA and Defendants,”Page 22 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“THUSA voluntarily dismissed this lawsuit on December 11, 2017, after a settlement was reached between the parties.” (page 23)
Multi-Jurisdictional No-Poach Settlements
settledGovernment or regulatory action
“Multi-Jurisdictional No-Poach Settlements In February 2020, we entered into a Settlement Agreement with the states of Massachusetts, California, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island.”Page 24 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“the parties entered into the Settlement Agreement and, among other things, agreed to not enforce these provisions in existing franchise agreements, notify their franchisees that they had entered into the settlements,”
Parent, affiliates and predecessor
Pending (10)
ADP Direct Poultry Ltd. v. Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen, Inc., Restaurant Brands International Inc., Restaurant Services Canada Inc., Amjad Farooq Inc., et al
pendingThird-party plaintiff · Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen, Inc. (affiliate) and Restaurant Brands International Inc. (parent); franchisor not a party · filed 2025 · Ontario Superior Court of Justice · CV-25-00741914-0000
“ADP Direct Poultry Ltd. v. Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen, Inc., Restaurant Brands International Inc., Restaurant Services Canada Inc., Amjad Farooq Inc., et al, (Court File No. CV-25-00741914-0000), Ontario Superior Court of Justice, filed on May 29, 2025, amended June 23, 2025.”Page 21 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“On December 19, 2025, PLK and RBI served a notice of motion to strike all elements of the claim and dismiss the case. We are not a party to this litigation.”
Daniel Pemberton v. Restaurant Brands International, Inc. & Restaurant Brands International US Services LLC
pendingThird-party plaintiff · Restaurant Brands International, Inc. and Restaurant Brands International US Services LLC; franchisor not a party · filed 2025-05-02 · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California · 4:25-cv-03647-JCS
“Daniel Pemberton v. Restaurant Brands International, Inc. & Restaurant Brands International US Services LLC, (No. 4:25-cv-03647-JCS), U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, filed on May 2, 2025.”Page 21 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“The Court granted Plaintiff leave to amend the complaint, and Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on January 29, 2026.The case is in early stages of discovery. We are not a party to this litigation.”
Hemal Patel et al. v. The TDL Group Corp and Benoit Vindimian
pendingBrought by a franchisee · The TDL Group Corp. and Benoit Vindimian; franchisor not a party · filed 2025-02-10 · Superior Court of Quebec · 500-17-132974-257
“Hemal Patel et al. v. The TDL Group Corp and Benoit Vindimian, (Case No. 500-17-132974-257), Superior Court of Quebec, filed on February 10, 2025.”Page 20 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“TDL has filed a defense and a motion to dismiss the suit and dismiss Defendant Benoit Vindimian. We are not a party to this litigation.”
Payal Keswani and Kendra Sivertson v. PH Canada Company, Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen, Inc., Restaurant Brands International, Inc. et al
pendingThird-party plaintiff · PH Canada Company and Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen, Inc. (affiliates) with Restaurant Brands International, Inc. (parent); franchisor not a party · filed 2025-06-18 · Supreme Court of British Columbia · VLC-S-S-254553
“Payal Keswani and Kendra Sivertson v. PH Canada Company, Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen, Inc., Restaurant Brands International, Inc. et al, (Case No. VLC-S-S-254553), Supreme Court of British Columbia, filed on June 18, 2025.”Page 21 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Gestion Boutin & Pearson Inc. et al v. Groupe TDL Corporation
pendingBrought by a franchisee · The TDL Group Corp. (Canadian Tim Hortons franchisor affiliate); franchisor not a party · filed 2024-03-28 · Superior Court of Quebec · 500-17-129374-248
“Gestion Boutin & Pearson Inc. et al v. Groupe TDL Corporation (Case No 500-17-129374-248), Superior Court of Quebec, filed on March 28, 2024. Twelve Tim Hortons franchisees based in Quebec have filed a claim against TDL for breaching its duty of assistance and partnership towards them by not allowing them to benefit from the advantages of their contract.”Page 19 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Jonathan Deschatelets v Restaurant Brands International Inc., Restaurant Brands International Limited Partnership and The TDL Group Corp.
pendingThird-party plaintiff · Restaurant Brands International Inc. and Restaurant Brands International Limited Partnership, with affiliate The TDL Group Corp.; franchisor not a party · filed 2024-04-19 · Superior Court of Quebec · 500-06-001306-246
“Jonathan Deschatelets v Restaurant Brands International Inc., Restaurant Brands International Limited Partnership and The TDL Group Corp., (File No. 500-06-001306-246), Superior Court of Quebec, filed on April 19, 2024.”Page 19 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“On June 27, 2025, the Court certified the class but limited it to residents of Quebec. TDL has appealed the class certification decision and a hearing on the appeal is scheduled for March 2026.”
Liel Ohayon v. Starbucks Coffee Canada, Inc., Starbucks Corporation, Foodtastic Inc., (a.d.b.a. Second Cup), The TDL Group Corp., Restaurant Brands International Inc., and Restaurant Brands International Limited Partnership
pendingThird-party plaintiff · The TDL Group Corp., with parents Restaurant Brands International Inc. and Restaurant Brands International Limited Partnership; franchisor not a party · filed 2024-12-30 · Superior Court of Quebec · 500-06-001351-242
“Liel Ohayon v. Starbucks Coffee Canada, Inc., Starbucks Corporation, Foodtastic Inc., (a.d.b.a. Second Cup), The TDL Group Corp., Restaurant Brands International Inc., and Restaurant Brands International Limited Partnership, (Case No. 500-06-001351-242), Superior Court of Quebec, filed on December 30, 2024.”Page 20 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“The class certification hearing was held on January 23, 2026. We are not a party to this litigation.”
Plymouth County Retirement Association, Scott Hamparian, Emad Tadros and Zeiad Tadros V. Restaurant Brands International Inc., Matthew Perelman and Alexander Sloane
pendingThird-party plaintiff · Restaurant Brands International Inc. (and two individual directors of Carrols Restaurant Group, Inc.); franchisor not a party · filed 2024-10-07 · Court of Chancery of State of Delaware · 2024 – 1030
“Plymouth County Retirement Association, Scott Hamparian, Emad Tadros and Zeiad Tadros V. Restaurant Brands International Inc., Matthew Perelman and Alexander Sloane, (C.A. No 2024 – 1030), Court of Chancery of State of Delaware, filed on October 7, 2024.”Page 20 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“The matter has been scheduled for trial beginning on February 1, 2027. A mediation was held on March 10, 2026. We are not a party to”
Olympia Tile International Inc. vs. Restaurant Brands International Inc., The TDL Group Corp., Ricky Leem and Gesco Limited Partnership
pendingThird-party plaintiff · Restaurant Brands International Inc. (general partner of the franchisor's indirect parent RBILP) and affiliate The TDL Group Corp.; franchisor not a party · filed 2020-09-25 · Ontario Court of Justice · CV-20-00648343-0000
“Olympia Tile International Inc. vs. Restaurant Brands International Inc., The TDL Group Corp., Ricky Leem and Gesco Limited Partnership, (File No. CV-20-00648343-0000), Ontario Court of Justice, filed on September 25, 2020.”Page 19 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“We received Plaintiff’s Response to our Demand for Particulars on April 14, 2021 and filed a Statement of Defence of Restaurant Brands International Inc., and The TDL Group Corp. on June 28, 2021. We are not a party to this litigation.”
Arrington v. Burger King Worldwide, Inc.
pendingThird-party plaintiff · Burger King Worldwide, Inc. / Burger King Corporation (BKC affiliates; RBI also named in two of the four cases); franchisor not a party · filed 2019-03-15 · United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida · 18-24128-CV-MARTINEZ/AOR
“Arrington v. Burger King Worldwide, Inc., (Case No. 18-24128-CV-MARTINEZ/AOR), United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, filed on March 15, 2019.”Page 22 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“On April 9, 2025, the Court denied BKC’s motion to dismiss. The Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 30, 2025, and BKC filed its answer on May 21, 2025. Court ordered mediation is scheduled for March 18, 2026. We are not a party to”
Concluded (3)
1523428 Ontario Inc. v. The TDL Group Corp.
settledBrought by a franchisee · The TDL Group Corp.; franchisor not a party · filed 2018-04-12 · Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Toronto, Ontario · CV-18-595714
“1523428 Ontario Inc. v. The TDL Group Corp., (Court file No. CV-18-595714), Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Toronto, Ontario. This action was commenced on April 12, 2018. Plaintiff was a franchisee of TDL and operated two stores in Toronto, Ontario. Plaintiff commenced an action against TDL in connection with its decision not to renew the Franchise Agreement for one of the stores.”Page 23 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“The claim was settled on August 15, 2018. We were not a party to this litigation.”
1523428 Ontario Inc. v. The TDL Group Corp., Tim Hortons Advertising and Promotion Fund (Canada) Inc., Restaurant Brands International Inc., Daniel Schwartz, Elias Diaz Sese, Andrea John and Jon Domanko
settledBrought by a franchisee · The TDL Group Corp., Tim Hortons Advertising and Promotion Fund (Canada) Inc., with parent Restaurant Brands International Inc. and its CEO Daniel Schwartz; franchisor not a party · filed 2017-06-19 · Ontario Superior Court of Justice · CV-17-577371
“1523428 Ontario Inc. v. The TDL Group Corp., Tim Hortons Advertising and Promotion Fund (Canada) Inc., Restaurant Brands International Inc., Daniel Schwartz, Elias Diaz Sese, Andrea John and Jon Domanko, (Court File No. CV-17-577371), Ontario Superior Court of Justice.”Page 23 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“On October 22, 2018 the claims against the Individuals, RBI and the Ad Fund were all struck, without leave to amend. The parties entered into a settlement agreement dated March 6, 2019. The Court approved the settlement agreement on April 29, 2019. We were not a party to this litigation.”
Five Sumket Corp. v. The TDL Group Corp.
settledBrought by a franchisee · The TDL Group Corp.; franchisor not a party · filed 2013 · Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta · 1303 11168
“Five Sumket Corp. v. The TDL Group Corp., Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, Court File No. 1303 11168. This action was commenced in August 2013. The dispute involves claims from the purchase by TDL of six Canadian restaurants from its former franchisee, Five Sumket Corp.”Page 23 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“On December 2018, the parties reached a settlement and the settlement agreement was executed on March 12, 2019. We were not a party to this litigation.”
This list shows 15 of the 17 matters Item 3 discloses; the rest are in the filing.
Item 3 lists the litigation the franchisor must disclose; a matter against a parent, an affiliate or a named officer is not a matter against the franchisor, and pending claims are allegations, not findings.
What are you signing up for?
Ongoing fees run about 8.5% of sales (royalty + ad fund), before rent and labor.
Source: FDD 2026 · Items 11, 12, 17
FDD Items 12, 15, 17 · continued from Risk & Legal
Contract & Territory Detail
| Initial term | 20 years |
|---|---|
| Allowed renewalsℹ | 0 |
| Protected territory | No |
| Exclusive territoryℹ | No |
| Online sales rights | Granted |
| Franchisor can compete | Yes |
| Hire a manager? | Allowed |
| Owner-operator | Required |
| Non-compete (years)ℹ | 2 years |
| Non-compete (miles)ℹ | 5 mi |
| Right of first refusalℹ | Yes |
| RoFR response window | 20 days |
| Transfer requires consent | Yes |
| Termination notice | 30 days |
| Mandatory arbitration | No |
| Jury trial waiver | Yes |
| Governing law | Florida |
| Litigation count | 17 |
View Item 3 litigation summary
Multiple pending cases against RBI/TDL/affiliates (not THUSA directly as party in most): Olympia Tile breach of contract; Quebec franchisee class action re: duty of assistance; consumer class action re: Roll Up To Win promotion; price-gouging class action re: non-dairy surcharges; Quebec franchisee termination dispute; Delaware Carrols shareholder derivative suit; California privacy/cookie tracking class action; Ontario chicken supplier dispute; BC drip-pricing class action; Burger King no-poach antitrust class action (ongoing since 2018). Several concluded settlements including no-poach multistate AG settlements. THUSA states it is not a party to most pending litigation.
Items 10, 11
Training & Operations
- Classroom training
- 15 hrs
- On-the-job training
- 179 hrs
- Ongoing training
- Required
- Site selection
- Franchisee identifies site, franchisor approves
- Franchisor financing
- Not offered
- Item 10
- POS system
- Standardized POS System
- Operating tech stack
Items 5 & 11
Franchisor Support
Technology: Standardized POS System
Item 20 · call current owners
Franchisee Contacts
80 owners to call
Name · phone · city · state. Extracted from FDD Item 20
Frequently asked questions
Frequently Asked Questions
How much does it cost to open a Tim Hortons franchise?
The total investment to open a Tim Hortons franchise ranges from $988K – $3.3M, with an initial franchise fee of $50K. This includes real estate, equipment, inventory, and working capital as disclosed in their Franchise Disclosure Document (FDD).
What do Tim Hortons franchise owners earn?
Item 19 of the Tim Hortons FDD discloses figures for part of the system but no single average across all outlets. These are gross sales figures, not profit; the Revenue section shows what the filing reports and on what basis. Item 20 of the FDD lists current and former franchisees; asking them directly is the standard way to fill this gap.
Who owns Tim Hortons?
Tim Hortons is franchised by Tim Hortons USA Inc.. Its parent company is Restaurant Brands International Limited Partnership (RBILP). The ultimate parent named in the FDD is Restaurant Brands International Inc. (RBI). Source: FDD Item 1, 2026 filing.
What is Item 19 in the Tim Hortons FDD?
The FDD section where a franchisor may disclose financial performance of its outlets. Disclosure is optional and formats vary; figures are typically gross sales, which is revenue before expenses, not profit. FranchiseVerdict extracts these figures directly from the Tim Hortons FDD and qualifies whose outlets they describe.
What is Tim Hortons's franchise failure rate?
Based on SBA 7(a) loan data, Tim Hortons has a charge-off rate of 0.0% across 26 loans, meaning 0.0% of franchise loans were charged off. Charge-off rates are one proxy for franchise risk, though they do not capture all closures. This data comes from FOIA-sourced SBA lending records.
How many Tim Hortons franchise locations are there?
As of their most recent FDD filing, Tim Hortons has 693 total units in the United States, including 669 franchised units and 24 company-owned units. 42 new units were opened in the latest reporting year.
Is Tim Hortons a good franchise to buy?
FranchiseVerdict rates Tim Hortons as a A-grade franchise with a verdict score of 86 out of 100 (higher is better). The grade is a deterministic score built from six weighted dimensions — financial health, unit economics, unit growth, scale, legal, and transparency — then calibrated against SBA loan charge-off rates and FDD age. Transparency is one of the six, so a filing that discloses less scores lower on that dimension than one that discloses more. Our rating is based solely on publicly available FDD and government data; we recommend speaking with current franchisees before making any investment decision. This is not investment advice.
Data sourced from public FDD filings and SBA 7(a) FOIA records. Not financial advice.
For franchisors
Are you the franchisor?
If you represent Tim Hortons, you can request corrections or provide updated information.
Other Quick-Service Restaurants franchises
Compare similar franchise opportunities in the Quick-Service Restaurants category
Data extracted from public FDD filings and SBA 7(a) loan disclosures (FOIA). This information is provided for research purposes only and does not constitute financial, legal, or investment advice. Verify all figures with the franchisor's current Franchise Disclosure Document before making any investment decision.