Manitoba’s Court of Appeal has upheld the dismissal of a pizza franchisor’s bid to seize restaurant equipment because essential evidence was missing.
In 10145668 Manitoba Ltd v Strobel Holdings Inc, 2026 MBCA 67, decided July 23, the franchisor sought priority under an assigned security agreement, access and damages.
The equipment was allegedly used by a failed Za Pizza Bistro franchise. Landlord Strobel claimed seizure rights following rent arrears and changed the locks. Freshslice’s respondent franchisors never possessed the equipment.
The judge identified gaps concerning the equipment’s existence, purchase, delivery, financing, value, fixtures, notice and seizure deadlines. Although factual and credibility disputes required a trial, she declined to direct one on that record.
The franchisor alleged legal errors under the Personal Property Security Act and challenged the landlord’s seizure. Strobel defended dismissal for insufficient evidence.
The appeal court deferred to that discretionary decision, finding no decisive factual error or injustice. It dismissed the appeal with costs, without specifying an amount or resolving equipment priority.
What the security legislation provides
Manitoba’s Personal Property Security Act separates enforcement rights from the court’s powers to supervise their use. Section 58(2) generally permits a secured party, following default, to take possession of collateral or enforce the agreement through lawful means, subject to specified provisions and contrary agreement.
Section 63(2) allows courts to declare rights, give directions, stay enforcement or protect collateral. These are powers a court may exercise on an application by an eligible interested person; the section does not automatically grant the relief requested. Section 65(3) also requires rights and obligations under a security agreement and the Act to be exercised in good faith and in a commercially reasonable manner.
