Anthony v. Binscarth Holdings GP Inc.
Greg Anthony
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Lawyer(s)

Mark Wainberg

Glen Anthony
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Lawyer(s)

Mark Wainberg

2309138 Ontario Inc.
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Lawyer(s)

Mark Wainberg

Anne Anthony
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Lawyer(s)

Mark Wainberg

John Anthony
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Lawyer(s)

Mark Wainberg

Gary Anthony
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Lawyer(s)

Mark Wainberg

Binscarth Holdings GP Inc.
Law Firm / Organization
Ross Nasseri LLP
Law Firm / Organization
Henein Hutchison Robitaille LLP
Lawyer(s)

David Postel

Binscarth Holdings L.P.
Law Firm / Organization
Ross Nasseri LLP
Law Firm / Organization
Henein Hutchison Robitaille LLP
Lawyer(s)

David Postel

Grant Anthony
Law Firm / Organization
Ross Nasseri LLP
Law Firm / Organization
Henein Hutchison Robitaille LLP
Lawyer(s)

David Postel

Background:

  • The appellants (Greg, Glen, Anne, John, and Gary Anthony, and 2309138 Ontario Inc.) are limited partners in Binscarth Holdings L.P., a partnership created in 2011 by their parents.
  • The general partner, Binscarth Holdings GP Inc., is controlled by their brother, Grant Anthony, who is also the sole trustee of the Anthony Control Trust.
  • The appellants sought a declaration that they are entitled to 100% of their proportionate share of the partnership’s net income annually as a cash distribution, retroactive to January 1, 2016.
  • The application judge dismissed their claim, leading to this appeal.

Key Legal Issues & Rulings:

  1. Interpretation of Section 11(1) of the Limited Partnerships Act

    • The appellants argued this section mandates annual distribution of profits.
    • The Court ruled that it grants limited partners a right to a share of profits but does not impose an obligation to pay those profits annually.
  2. Discretionary Distributions Under the Partnership Agreement

    • Clause 8.1(a) of the LPA gives the general partner sole discretion over distributions.
    • The Court upheld this provision, noting the appellants had independent legal advice before signing.
  3. Application of the Accumulations Act

    • The Court found it inapplicable, as it governs trusts, not commercial partnerships.

Conclusion:

  • The appeal was dismissed.
  • Costs of $30,000 were awarded to the respondents.
Court of Appeal for Ontario
COA-24-CV-0512
Corporate & commercial law
$ 30,000
Respondent