Lehndorff General Partner Ltd. (Re),  O.J. No. 14, 9 B.L.R. (2d) 275,
17 C.B.R. (3d) 24, 37 A.C. W.S. (3d) 847 (Gen. Div.), consd
Other cases referred to
Canadian National Railway Co. v. Canada (Attorney General),  2 S.C.R.
135,  S.C.J. No. 40, 2014 SCC 40, 2014EXP-1666, 371 D.L.R. (4th) 219,
67 Admin. L.R. (5th) 220, 458 N.R. 150, J.E 2014-941, EYB 2014-237426,
240 A.C.W.S. (3d) 262; Colville-Reeves v. Canadian Home Publishers,  O.J.
No. 3675 (C.A.), affg  O.J. No. 3367 (Gen. Div.); Heritage Capital Corp.
v. Equitable Trust Co.,  1 S.C.R. 306,  S.C.J. No. 19, 2016 SCC 19,
65 R.P.R. (5th) 51, 395 D.L.R. (4th) 656,  6 W.W.R. 1, 48 M.P.L.R. (5th) 1,
482 N.R. 361, 6 P.P.S.A.C. (4th) 1, 2016EXP-1429, J.E. 2016-771, EYB 2016-265357,
265 A.C. W.S. (3d) 254
Statutes referred to
Limited Partnerships Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L. 16, ss. 2( 2), 8 [as am.], 9, 11, 13( 1),
15( 1), 24
Partnerships Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 5, s. 44 [as am.]
Authorities referred to
Manzer, Alison, A Practical Guide to Canadian Partnership Law, looseleaf (Toronto:
Canada Law Book, 2017)
APPEAL from the judgment of Wilton-Siegel J.,  O.J. No.
3868, 2018 ONSC 4427 (S.C.J.).
Matthew Gottlieb and Ryann Atkins, for appellant.
Mark Gelowitz, Adam Hirsh and Julian Heller, for respondents.
The judgment of the court was delivered by
[ 1] NORDHEIMER J.A.: — The appellant appeals from the judg-
ment of the application judge that dissolved Canadian Home
Publishers as a limited partnership, as a consequence of the death
of its sole limited partner, David Colville-Reeves, and awarded
David’s estate a 50 per cent share in the value of the residual
assets of the partnership.
[ 2] For the purpose of the appeal, the appellant accepts that the
application judge was correct in finding that the limited partnership was dissolved upon David’s death. The only issue is whether
the application judge was correct in finding that any residual
assets, remaining after distribution of the amounts contemplated
by s. 24 of the Limited Partnerships Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L. 16
(“LPA”), were to be divided equally between David, as the sole
limited partner, and the appellant, Canadian Home Publishers
Inc., as the sole general partner.
[ 3] For the reasons that follow, I would allow the appeal. The
application judge erred in finding that David, as a limited partner,
was entitled to share equally in the residual assets of the limited
partnership in the absence of an agreement to that effect. The