FDD Items 3 & 4 · 2026 filing

Tim Hortons litigation history

What Tim Hortons disclosed about lawsuits, arbitrations and bankruptcy in the 2026 Franchise Disclosure Document. Item 3 lists the material legal actions a franchisor must report; Item 4 covers bankruptcy. This is the franchisor's own disclosure, not a court record, and not legal advice.

Items 3 & 4 at a glance

What the filing discloses

Cases disclosed: 17; Item 3, as counted in the filing

Largest disclosed settlement: None stated

Bankruptcy (Item 4): None; Franchisor, parent, predecessor or officer

Filing year: 2026; Disclosures cover the prior ten years

Extracted from the 2026 Franchise Disclosure Document

Item 3: litigation

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.

Item 3 · 17 matters disclosed · 10 pending listed

Litigation cases

The franchisor

Concluded (2)

Tim Hortons USA, Inc. v. Tim-Minn, Inc. et al.
settled
Third-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
settled
Government 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
pending
Third-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
pending
Third-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
pending
Brought 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
pending
Third-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
pending
Brought 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.
pending
Third-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
pending
Third-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
pending
Third-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
pending
Third-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.
pending
Third-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.
settled
Brought 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
settled
Brought 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.
settled
Brought 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.

Disclosure signals that moved the score

How this shows up in the verdict

12 litigation matters but against RBI/TDL/affiliates, routine for 693-unit system
No bankruptcy, no going-concern, audited, Item 19 disclosed

The verdict grade is FranchiseVerdict's editorial assessment across SBA loan performance, unit growth, revenue and disclosure signals. It is not investment advice.

Before you weigh a lawsuit

How to read Item 3

A franchisor must disclose pending actions and any material civil action involving the franchise relationship, plus convictions or civil judgments for fraud, unfair or deceptive practices, or franchise-law violations, going back ten years. A case the franchisor brought against a franchisee counts too. Item 3 does not include every dispute: settled claims below the materiality line and matters resolved in private arbitration can be absent.

Questions worth asking current and former franchisees, using the contact list in Item 20:

Were you, or anyone you know in the system, party to a dispute with the franchisor?
Was it resolved by settlement, arbitration or a court, and on what terms?
Has the number of disputes gone up or down since you signed?

Back to the Tim Hortons verdict Risk analysis on the brand page Franchisee contacts for due-diligence calls