As a follow up to my last blog about small claims court matters, let’s keep going…Remember: this isn’t legal advice.  It’s legal information.  If you’re looking for a small claims court lawyer in Ontario, make a post on Dynamic Lawyers.

Valuing the Claim
Remember: the amount of damages you suffered must be less than $25,000. If it is over this amount, you will have to reduce your claim to $25,000 exclusive of interest (pre and post judgment) and reimbursement of court costs or legal fees. If you are not prepared to reduce your claim to this limit, then you need to take your case to the Superior Court.

If you claim for more than $25,000 or if you split your claim into smaller portions, each under $25,000 but which altogether are over $25,000, you run the risk of having the Small Claims Court reject your claim, or a party challenging it.

The next question is how to quantify your claim. If your claim is based on an invoice or a contract price or a specific damage that is ascertainable, then you know the value of your claim. Enter this amount on the space provided on page 3 of the Plaintiff’s Claim that says “How Much?” Along with entering the amount of your claim, there is also a space on the form to claim interest. Interest may be based on an agreed upon amount (e.g. as per a contract) or in accordance with the current court rate (as per Courts of Justice Act).

If your claim is not based on an invoice or a contract price and is not readily ascertainable, then you can put down your best estimate of what your total damages will be when the dust settles up to the maximum $25,000. You can also claim interest on this types of damages.

When calculating your damages, some things to keep in mind are: out-of-pocket expenses, lost income, lost opportunities, loss of reputation, loss of value to property, etc. Emotional distress and psychological harm are not easily to quantify and there are stringent legal tests that must be met in order for a court to award damages on that basis. Besides, if you claim these latter types of damages, you may expose yourself to having to open up your medical history through the litigation.

…Next Up: Schedule A…

written by admin \\ tags: best estimate, contract price, court matters, courts of justice act, emotional distress, interest interest, invoice, judgment, lawyer, lawyers, legal advice, legal information, legal tests, plaintiff, pocket expenses, psychological harm, reputation, small claims court, superior court, types of damages

Please note that the information provided herein is not legal advice and is provided for informational and educational purposes only.  If you need legal advice with respect to getting, varying, or terminating child support in Ontario, you should seek professional assistance (e.g. make a post on Dynamic Lawyers).  We have Toronto, Ottawa, Brampton, Hamilton, and other Ontario family law lawyers registered on Dynamic Lawyers who can offer information, advice, and assistance with respect to helping you get, vary, or terminate child support.

As a follow up to my recent blog about child support obligations in Ontario and limitations on that obligation, in this blog, I’ll be discussing what the relevant time period is for determining a parent’s ” income” for the purpose of paying child support (note: this blog won’t deal with the timeline for determining income in respect of retroactive payments).

Remember: a parent’s child support obligations depends on whether they meet certain legal tests.  If they are obliged under law to pay, the next question becomes: how much do they need to pay?  Well, that depends on their income.  But it’s not just any “income” (e.g. income for tax purposes, etc.).  It’s actually a complicated legal analysis of what constitutes their income.  I’ll try to shed some light in the next few posts about relevant issues when trying to determine a payor’s income.

One such issue that comes to mind is:  what is the relevant time period for determining a parent’s “income” for child support purposes?

In a nutshell, the most current information must be used.

The Child Support Guidelines prescribe a method to determine child support. The starting point is the parent’s total income, as shown on his or her income tax return (latest T1 General form issued by the Canada Revenue Agency), and as adjusted in accordance with Schedule III of the Guidelines [s. 16]. The definitions section of the Guidelines provides that, where any amount is to be determined on the basis of specific information, the most current information must be used [s. 2(3)].

In Ward v. Ward, 44 R.F.L. (4th) 340, the Ontario Divisional Court stated the following with respect to the Federal Child Support Guidelines (which mirror the Ontario Child Support Guidelines):

23 In order to identify the table amount of child support the income of the petitioner must be ascertained. In the usual case the income of the payor-parent is identified by using the most current information available (pursuant to s. 2(3) of the Guidelines) and by referring to the “Total income” found in his or her T1 General form issued by Revenue Canada (pursuant to s. 16 of the Guidelines).

This view was reiterated in Muir v. Muir, 44 R.F.L. (4th) 340, where the Ontario Court of Justice observed:

23 I also note subsection 2(3) of the Guidelines which reads as follows:

Most current information – Where for the purposes of these Guidelines, any amount is determined on the basis of specified information, the most current information must be used.

Worth mentioning, however, is that courts have recognized that the amount of income disclosed on the tax return need not necessarily be used: prior to the end of a taxation year and in certain circumstances, a parent can apply to vary child support based on an anticipated reduction in income.

Finally, the court may consider the parent’s last 3 years of income and determine an amount that is fair and reasonable in light of any pattern of income, fluctuation in income or receipt of a non-recurring amount during those years [s. 17(1)]. The objective is to determine the fairest indicator of the individual’s income. Once the parent’s annual income is ascertained, the Ontario Child Support Tables set out the amount of monthly child support payable.  For more on using the tables or a child support calculator to determine child support obligations, please refer to my other blogs.

written by admin \\ tags: canada revenue agency, child support guidelines, child support in ontario, child support obligations, child support purposes, family law lawyers, income tax return, legal advice, ontario family law, relevant time period, tax purposes

Please note that the information provided herein is not legal advice and is provided for informational and educational purposes only.  If you need legal advice with respect to getting, varying, or terminating child support in Ontario, you should seek professional assistance (e.g. make a post on Dynamic Lawyers).  We have Toronto, Ottawa, Brampton, Hamilton, and other Ontario family law lawyers registered on Dynamic Lawyers who can offer information, advice, and assistance with respect to helping you get, vary, or terminate child support.

This is the first of a series of blog posts I’ll be writing about family law in Ontario.  In this blog, I’ll be discussing something vary basic: child support obligations in Ontario.

A common question people sometimes ask: if I never get married but have a child with someone, do I still owe them child support?  Well, the Ontario Family Law Act doesn’t care if you, as the child’s father or mother, is married.  Nor does the Act care if you’re common law.  All that matters is that the payor is the child’s parent.

Basic Obligation of Parent to Pay Child Support
O.k., so when does a parent have to pay child support in Ontario?  Basically, there are two situations under s. 31(1) of the Act which require a parent to pay child support.  Here’s what that section says:

Obligation of parent to support child

31. (1) Every parent has an obligation to provide support for his or her unmarried child who is a minor or is enrolled in a full time program of education, to the extent that the parent is capable of doing so.

So by reading this section, it becomes clear: every parent has an obligation to provide support for his or her unmarried child who is (1) a minor or (2) enrolled in a full time program of education.  There is an exception to these two tests and that is set out in section 31(2), which states that the obligation under s. 31(1) does not extend to a child who is 16 years old (or older) and who has withdrawn from parental control.  What exactly is meant by “parental control” will be discussed in the next blog.

First Branch: Minor
Under the first branch, the first question to ask is: who is considered a “minor” in Ontario?  The Age of Majority and Accountability Act states that: “Every person attains the age of majority and ceases to be a minor on attaining the age of eighteen years” [s. 1].  Remember: this liability is limited by the parent’s capability of paying child support [s. 31(1)].  This liability is further restricted if child, assuming he or she is over 16 years old, has withdrawn from parental control [s. 31(2)].

Second Branch: Attending School Full Time
Even if a parent’s child is over the age of 16 (indeed, there doesn’t appear to be any upward limit here), a parent may still be liable to pay child support if the child is “an unmarried child who…is enrolled in a full time program of education”.  This is the second branch.  Once again: this liability is limited by the parent’s capability of paying child support [s. 31(1)].  This liability is further restricted if child, assuming he or she is over 16 years old, has withdrawn from parental control [s. 31(2)].

Caselaw
So how have Ontario courts interpreted these sections of the Act dealing with the obligation of a parent to support a child?

In Giess v. Upper (1996), 28 R.F.L. (4th) 46, Mendes da Costa J. of the Ontario Court of Justice – General Division wrote the following about the support obligation created by s. 31(1) of the Act in the context of that case:

16 The support obligation created by section 31(1) is two-fold. First, it applies to an “unmarried child who is a minor”. While the child, Elizabeth, is unmarried, she was born on October 22nd, 1977, and is now 19 years of age. As she is no longer a “minor”, she does not qualify for support under this limb of the subsection. Secondly, the support obligation extends to a child who is “enrolled in a full time program of education”. With regard to this extension of the support obligation, the word “child” is used as a term of relationship, and does not imply any limitation as to age.

In that case, the 19 year old child was found to be enrolled in a full time program of education. Mendes da Costa J. explained that the word “enrolled” meant that the child’s participation had to be meaningful: “it must be of such a nature and equality as to be consistent with the program’s purposes and objectives”. The father was found to have an obligation to provide child support under the second branch of s. 31(1) of the Act – subject to whether the child had “withdrawn from parental control”.

In McCann v McCann, the Ontario Court of Justice – General Division rejected the argument that if a child stopped being enrolled in a full-time program of education and ceased to be eligible for any child support, then their eligibility forever ceased and could not be resurrected by a subsequent enrollment in school in a full-time program of education. As per Aston J.:

24 Christopher McCann is now an “unmarried child” who is enrolled in a full-time program of education. I cannot conceive of any reason in logic or equity why it should matter that he has not been continuously enrolled in a full-time program of education since attaining the age of 18. The word “continuously” does not appear in the wording of subsection 31(1) of the Family Law Act.

25 There is a discretion in the court to deny support to an adult child who has left a full-time program of education and then resumed such a program but a gap in an ongoing program of education does not, in my view, automatically disqualify an applicant child from seeking support.

In McNulty v. McNulty, [2006] W.D.F.L. 434, Howden J. of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice observed:

10 The obligation to pay support for a child has not been applied by the court on a standard of perfection (or near-perfection) in attendance or in achievement by marks. The requirement of section 31(1), for the child who has reached 18 years of age and is no longer a minor, is that that “child” be enrolled in a full-time program. That has been applied to mean participation in the educational program in which he/she is enrolled in a meaningful way.  Giess v. Upper, (1996) 28 R.F.L. (4th) 460 (Ont. Gen Div).  In Copeland v. Copeland, (Ont. Gen. Div. (unreported Dec. 9/92, noted in Ontario Family Law Practice 2006, by C. Perkins, D. Steinberg and E. Lonkingly (sp?), p. 696), it was determined that a court should not impose a standard of devotion, priority and effort on a child as a condition of continuing a claim for support. In another case, that of a daughter over 18 years of age who completed high school but did not attend school for a year, the court held that the parent’s support obligation had not ended. Huneault J. held:

11 The purpose of the obligation to provide support extending into a child’s adult years is to reinforce parental responsibility for the education of their children beyond the age of majority. Reading this section as a whole, the legislative intent of parental support is to provide and continue to provide support for a child who is pursuing an educational program and remains dependant on the parent while he/she has not completed their education…

…

13 …The requirement of enrolment in a full-time course of education does not contemplate mere enrolment of the student to operate as a continuing trigger for support payments without some participation by the “child” in the program. Barring special circumstances (such as Tiara’s pregnancy, giving birth and maternal duties in her newborn’s first year), the “child” of 18 years or more owes a duty of due diligence to participate meaningfully in the educational program (interpreted in a contextual understanding, and purposive way) under section 31 of the Act.  Figueiredo v. Figueiredo (1991), 33 R.F.L. (3d) 72 (Ont. Gen. Div.), following Giess v. Upper.

Finally, in Simpson v. Hart, 1998 CarswellOnt 5163, Dunbar J. of the Ontario Court of Justice – General Division noted that: “The law is clear that a child who is independent may re-qualify for support from a parent by recommencing school and thus becoming dependent once more on the parents”.

written by admin \\ tags: child support in ontario, child support obligations, common law, educational purposes, family law act, family law in ontario, family law lawyers, full time, information advice, legal advice, obligation, ontario family law, ontario family law act, ottawa, professional assistance, section 31, unmarried child

Please note that the information provided herein is not legal advice and is provided for informational and educational purposes only.   If you need legal advice with respect to a mistake in a Will,  you should seek professional assistance (e.g. make a post on Dynamic Lawyers).  We have Toronto, Ottawa, Hamilton, Brampton, Mississauga and other Ontario lawyers registered to help you prepare and draft a Will.

A Will is only valid if the Testator knew and approved its content.  If words have been mistakenly inserted into a Will without such knowledge or approval, then a court may strike out those specific passages or phrases.  In Barylak v. Figol, 9 E.T.R. (2d) 305, for example, a residuary clause had been inserted by mistake.  That clause gave the residue of the deceased’s estate to a fund to create a scholarship for needy students of Ukrainian origin. The Testator never gave his solicitor instructions to include that offending residuary clause. There was no evidence that the Will was ever sent to the Testator prior to its execution for review by him. Even if it had been, there was no evidence as to whether the Testator’s command of written English was such that he would have fully understood it. Also, there was no evidence that a true copy of the executed Will was left with the testator or that a copy was sent to him. Overall, the Ontario Court of Justice (General Division) held that the Testator knew nothing about the residuary clause and that it did not reflect his expression. Accordingly, the Court deleted the clause from his Will based on the doctrine of mistake.

written by admin \\ tags: brampton, court of justice, educational purposes, legal advice, mississauga, needy students, ontario court of justice, ontario lawyers, ottawa, passages, professional assistance, residuary clause, solicitor, testator, true copy, ukrainian origin, Wills and Estates

Please note that the information provided herein is not legal advice and is provided for informational and educational purposes only.   If you need legal advice as a dependent, you should seek professional assistance (e.g. make a post on Dynamic Lawyers).  We have Toronto, Ottawa, Hamilton, Brampton, Mississauga and other Ontario lawyers registered to help you in this regard.

What if you have been inadequately provided for in someone’s Will?  Well, if you’re a dependent in Ontario, you might have some legislative recourse.

Section 58(1) of the Succession Law Reform Act allows a deceased’s dependents to apply to the court for support where the deceased (either through a Will or absent one) has not made adequate provision for their proper support.  A dependent is defined under s. 57 of that Act to include your spouse, former spouse, common-law spouse, parent, grandparent, child, grandchild, brother, and sister. A dependant may have to prove that they are a dependent and entitled to financial support under s. 58(1) in court. If the court decides that the person is a dependant and that person can show a need for financial support, then it may order that a certain amount of money be paid to them out of the estate.

If you think that you may be entitled to more from an estate than the amount provided for in a Will, or if you need to determine the rights of others when preparing your Will, consult with a lawyer (by making a post on Dynamic Lawyers).

written by admin \\ tags: adequate provision, brampton, brother and sister, common law spouse, dependant, dependents, educational purposes, legal advice, ontario lawyers, professional assistance, regard, succession law reform act, toronto, Wills and Estates

Please note that the information provided herein is not legal advice and is provided for informational and educational purposes only.   If you need legal advice with respect to a Will or International Will, you should seek professional assistance (e.g. make a post on Dynamic Lawyers).  We have Toronto, Ottawa, Hamilton, Brampton, Mississauga and other Ontario lawyers registered to help you prepare and draft a Will or International Will.

Along with other provinces and countries, Ontario is a contracting party to the Convention Providing a Uniform Law on the Form of an International Will.  This means that, if a Will is made in the form of an International Will (i.e. in accordance with the form prescribed by that Convention in the Schedule and Annex in the Succession Law Reform Act) concerning two or more contracting parties, then the Will is valid as between those parties irrespective of where it was made, the location of the assets and of the nationality, domicile, or residence of the testator. At present, some the contracting parties to the Convention include: Belgium, most Canadian provinces (Manitoba, Newfoundland, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia), Cyprus, Ecuador, France, Italy, Iran, Portugal, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America.  An important difference with an International Will is the requirement that an authorized person (in Ontario, this means a lawyer) attach to the Will a Certificate establishing that the obligations of the Convention have been complied with.

written by admin \\ tags: brampton, canadian provinces, domicile, educational purposes, legal advice, mississauga, nationality, new brunswick, ontario lawyers, prince edward island, professional assistance, russian federation, succession law reform act, testator, uniform law, Wills and Estates

Please note that the information provided herein is not legal advice and is provided for informational and educational purposes only.   If you need legal advice with respect to a Will,  you should seek professional assistance (e.g. make a post on Dynamic Lawyers).  We have Toronto, Ottawa, Hamilton, Brampton, Mississauga and other Ontario lawyers registered to help you prepare and draft a Will.

In this blog, I’ll be discussing what a Will is.

When you die, you may be leaving behind valuable assets, such as real estate, bank accounts, and personal possessions.  Taken together, these assets are referred to as your “estate”. A Will is a legal document which declares your final wishes concerning the disposal of your assets after you die. According to section 1(1) of the Succession Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.26, a Will also includes a “Codicil”, which is a document that cancels certain parts of your Will or adds new parts to it and which must be read together with your Will as one document.  A person who makes and signs a valid Will is referred to as a Testator (for a man) or Testatrix (for a woman).

A Will identifies who will responsible for administering your final wishes.  While this individual is commonly referred to as an “Estate Trustee”, “Administrator”, “Executor”, “Personal Representative” or “Liquidator”.  He or she will pay out liabilities, manage remaining assets, and distribute the remaining funds of the estate (the “residue”) to the beneficiaries designated under the Will. A Will may also identify Guardians in the case of minor or incapable dependents left behind.

written by admin \\ tags: bank accounts, beneficiaries, brampton, codicil, dependents, estate trustee, executor, guardians, legal advice, legal document, liquidator, mississauga, ontario lawyers, personal possessions, personal representative, professional assistance, succession law reform act, testator, testatrix, Wills and Estates

Please note that the information provided herein is not legal advice and is provided for informational and educational purposes only.   If you need legal advice with respect to your offer or agreement of purchase and sale (or wanting to back out of one) you should seek professional assistance (e.g. make a post on Dynamic Lawyers).  We have Toronto, Ottawa, Hamilton, Brampton, Mississauga and other Ontario lawyers registered to help you with your offer or agreement of purchase and sale.

In this blog, I’ll be discussing what happens if you change your mind after singing an offer or purchase agreement?

Once an offer or counteroffer has been made, it cannot be withdrawn unless there is a time limit on the offer or counteroffer which passes without being accepted.

An Agreement of Purchase and Sale may also be terminated if it becomes impossible to perform through no fault of either party (lawyers say such a contract is “frustrated”).  An example is property destroyed in a flood or a fire before the buyer has taken possession.

If there is no relevant termination clause in the Agreement of Purchase and Sale, a party cannot claim frustration if the supervening event resulted from a voluntary act of the buyer or seller.  Furthermore, frustration is not available if the parties contemplated the possibility of the supervening event arising during the term of the agreement and provided for in the agreement. In Dinicola v. Huang & Danczkay Properties, 2 R.P.R. (3d) 267, a condominium developer failed to develop 3 buildings and returned all deposits and down payments. The condominium unit purchasers, however, sued for breach of contract. In its defence, the developer argued that the municipal council’s refusal to approve the site plan for the development of the buildings frustrated its agreements with the purchasers. The Ontario Court of Justice (General Division) rejected that defence and found the developer liable to pay damages assessed at $4.9-million.  The court reasoned that frustration was not available as a defence because the developer and the purchasers had contemplated the possibility of the municipal council’s refusal at the time the purchase and sale agreements were entered into. That possibility was also provided for in the agreements.  Frustration was also not available because the developer relied on its own refusal to negotiate terms of the approval with the municipality to excuse itself from liability under the agreements.

Purchasers of new condominium units in Ontario have a cooling-off period of 10 days to back out of their purchase agreements.

Once the offer or counteroffer has been formally accepted, the buyer and seller are bound legally by its terms. If you walk away from a deal you may not only lose your deposit, but may also be liable for any damages suffered by the other party, such as the lost opportunity to sell to someone else, expenses arising from a delayed move, or the seller’s loss of deposit on another home intended for purchase. The legal remedy, called “specific performance” (making you complete the purchase), is an unlikely event, but a court could still hold you responsible for the entire purchase price, plus expenses and court costs.

written by admin \\ tags: brampton, breach of contract, condominium unit, counteroffer, court of justice, dinicola, down payments, educational purposes, legal advice, mississauga, ontario court of justice, ontario lawyers, party lawyers, professional assistance, termination clause, time limit, voluntary act

Please note that the information provided herein is not legal advice and is provided for informational and educational purposes only.  If you need legal advice with respect to drafting, reviewing, interpreting or resolving disputes concerning partnership and limited partnership agreements, you should seek professional assistance (e.g. make a post on Dynamic Lawyers).  We have Toronto, Ottawa, Hamilton, Mississauga, Brampton, and other Ontario business lawyers registered on the website who can answer your questions or help you with your partnership and limited partnership agreements.  I should know – I’m one of them and you can contact me directly.

Following up on my recent blogs about Ontario limited partnerships, what they’re all about, how a limited partner can lose their limited partner status, and how a limited partnership is not a separate legal person, I thought I would blog about an important yet often overlooked aspect of using limited partnerships to raise money for an investment: complying with securities laws.

Ontario limited partnerships are generally used for tax planning purposes.  A group of persons want to start a business.  They realize that the business will generate losses in the first few years (which is normal when you’re first starting out).  They want to offset their income with those losses.  If they use a corporation, the losses will get trapped in the corporation.  The corporation can carry them forward (to a certain extent), but cannot transfer those losses through dividends to the shareholders.  Since a limited partnership is simply a flow-through structure and not a separate legal entity, its losses can be attributed to its partners.  So, to recap: Ontario limited partnerships are generally used for tax purposes (since they offer no advantages to mitigate liability vis-a-vis a corporation).

Now, we move on to securities laws implications.

When limited partnerships are being established, it’s not just a matter of complying with the provincial partnerships acts, the Income Tax Act, and any partnership agreement that may exist between the partners.  If the limited partnership is going to be offering “securities” (as defined under the Ontario Securities Act) through the offering of limited partnership interests that fall under that definition, then the limited partnership will need to comply with dealer registration, prospectus requirements, and other onerous obligations before it is allowed to offer those securities.  The limited partnership can, however, avoid complying with those securities law obligations if it qualifies for an exemption.  You should definitely consult with a business lawyer familiar with these exemptions BEFORE offering limited partnership interests. Also keep in mind that you’ll need to comply in ALL of the jurisdictions you’re proposing to offer securities.  So you’ll need to consult with lawyers about compliance in those jurisdictions (and the rules are not necessarily the same wherever you go!).  All too often, parties don’t think about complying with securities laws until it’s too late.  Then it’s only down hill from there: Ontario Securities Act proceedings which could result in worse things (e.g. civil litigation, bankruptcy, divorce, etc.).  OUCH!!!

written by admin \\ tags: business lawyers, educational purposes, first few years, legal advice, limited partnership agreements, limited partnerships, ontario business, partner status, professional assistance, securities laws, separate legal entity, shareholders, tax planning, tax purposes

Please note that the information provided herein is not legal advice and is provided for informational and educational purposes only.  If you need legal advice with respect to drafting, reviewing, interpreting or resolving disputes concerning partnership agreements, you should seek professional assistance (e.g. make a post on Dynamic Lawyers).  We have Toronto, Ottawa, Hamilton, Mississauga, Brampton, and other Ontario business lawyers registered on the website who can answer your questions or help you with your partnership agreements.  I should know – I’m one of them and you can contact me directly.

This is a follow up to my recent blog about partnership agreements (Part 1) (which dealt with the date, parties, and partnership name) and my other recent blog about partnership agreements (Part 2) (which dealt with the place of business, business of the partnership).  In this blog, I’ll be discussing Capital Contributions, Division of Net Profits, Accounting and Other Records, and Fiscal Year End. Keep in mind that these are different from limited partnerships and limited liability partnerships.  Please also further keep in mind that general partnerships are governed by their agreements and provincial statutes.

Capital Contributions
Capital contributions are assets (e.g. money, etc.) that the partners put into the partnership to help get the business on its feet (e.g. by paying for start-up costs and working capital).  In the absence of an agreement, partners must contribute equally.   Section 24.1 of the Ontario Partnerships Act only says that: “All the partners are entitled to share equally in the capital…of the business…[and]…must contribute equally towards the [capital] losses…”  It’s important to note that partnership agreements may want to include from the onset the obligation on partners to contribute capital in the future (e.g. at regular intervals).  Since a partnership is simply a flow through structure and does not have a separate legal existence from the partners who make it up, it cannot retain and reinvest earnings.  That’s why it’s a good idea to force partners to contribute additional capital from time to time.  This can be done, for example, by having the partners agree to reinvest a % of profits in the partnership business, maintain a reserve, or identify circumstances which would require specific amounts or percentages of capital to be contributed and when.

It’s worth mentioning that partners who transfer property to a Canadian partnership (and where all the partners so jointly elect) can do so on a tax rollover basis: s. 97(2) and 85(1) of the Canada Income Tax Act.  This means that property can be transferred at elected values instead of at fair market value (which may have tax implications).

Division of Net Profits
In the absence of an agreement, partners are entitled to share equally in the partnership business’ profits: s. 24.1.  In typical partnership agreements, the partners will agree to divide the net profits as per their capital contributions.  Remember: profits are only paid if there’s anything left after paying expenses.  That’s why it’s important for the partners to agree that, in a fiscal year, expenses and losses of the partnership will be paid out first and if there isn’t enough assets and income in the partnership business to offset those expenses and losses, then the partners will contribute in proportion to their partnership interest.  You may want to think about including a provision that requires periodic review of the division of net profits and the basis for revisiting partnership interests in profit.  For example, a partner who spends a great deal of time on non-billable administrative items (e.g. human resources management, information technology management, accounting, taxes, marketing management, etc.) may be rewarded with a higher interest in profits – perhaps even higher than their capital contribution.

Accounting and Other Records
Partners or their legal representatives are entitled to request and receive from other partners true accounts and full information “of all things affecting the partnership”: s. 28.  To help clarify what these “things” are, the partnership agreement should describe the nature of records, statements, books, etc. that are kept in the partnership (and where they will be kept).  The records should be sufficiently detailed for tax, legal, and business purposes.  Finally, you’ll want to make sure that you include a statement in the partnership agreement that requires that unfettered access to all records, data, accounts, and information stored electronically (by means of a computer, etc.) be given to all the partners and their legal representatives at all times.

Fiscal Year
Picking a fiscal year is not as straightforward as one thinks.

For accounting purposes, you should consult with an accountant or auditor to determine an ideal fiscal period for reporting.  For example, if your business is cyclical or seasonal, you may want to select a certain year end that helps to smooth income.   Be sure to seek advice!

For tax purposes (remember that partnerships must file an annual partnership information return after their fiscal period), the combined effects of ss. 96(1) and 249.1 of the Canada Income Tax Act make it clear that the fiscal period will be determined by the type of taxpayers (e.g. individuals, corporations, etc.) that make up the partnership group.  If any member of the partnership is an individual, then the fiscal year end must generally be the calendar year end (with certain limited exceptions).  If all of the members of the partnership are corporations, the the fiscal year end can be anywhere, so long as the fiscal period does not exceed 53 weeks: s. 249.1(1)(a).

written by admin \\ tags: brampton, business business, business lawyers, capital contributions, general partnerships, legal advice, limited liability partnerships, limited partnerships, net profits, ontario business, partnership agreements, partnership name, place of business, professional assistance, provincial statutes, working capital