Court of Appeal on Restrictive Covenant on Dissolution of Partnership

David Alderson, LL.B, LL.M (Commercial and Corporate), Q.Arb, Lawyer and ArbitratorBusiness Litigation, Civil Litigation, Commercial and Contract Litigation, Commercial Litigation, Contract Disputes, Contract Termination, Joint Venture Disputes, Partnership Dispute, Partnerships and Shareholder Disputes0 Comments

The Court of Appeal for Ontario released its decision on February 11, 2014, in  Greenaway v Sovran 2014 ONCA 110 on the appeal by a “withdrawing” partner  of a two-member firm from the decision of the Superior Court of Justice on an application to determine the enforceability of a “restrictive covenant” in their partnership agreement.

The application judge found that the two-member firm partnership had been dissolved and declared the restrictive covenant unenforceable as a penalty, but directed a trial of an issue to determine the damages payable by the appellant as a result of a breach of the portion of the portion of the covenant he found valid and severable – the withdrawal having triggered a clause in the agreement which called for the reduction of the withdrawing partner’s capital account “by 500% of the average fees billed by the firm to clients who transfer to the withdrawing partner within 24 months of the withdrawal date”.

Using a standard of review of correctness, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal of the withdrawing partner. After noting that there was no disagreement that this was a general dissolution, because the dissolution of the two-partner firm brought its business to an end, it found that the Part of the partnership agreement dealing with “Withdrawals and Dissolution”, dealt with the consequences of withdrawal, but that most of the provisions therein contemplated the continuation of the firm after withdrawal of one or more partners in a multi-party firm.  The appellate court observed that nothing in the agreement dealt  with what would happen in the case of partnership of two on dissolution.

The Court of Appeal held that on the dissolution of a two-member firm, the firm ceased to exist and the parties were free to pursue their own practices, there being no contractual term preventing them from doing so.  In consequence, the partners should be limited in their common law and statutory rights of dissolution, and nothing more. To do otherwise the appellate court reasoned “..would force an unhappy partner to choose between remaining handcuffed to the other partner or quitting the partnership and, for practical purposes, leaving the entire business to the other partner.”

The entire endorsement of the Court of Appeal for Ontario is here.

The related Gilbertson Davis LLP Practice Area is described here.

If you require advice about partnership law or representation in an a partnership dispute, please call us for an initial consultation.

Brief informational summaries about insurance litigation, commercial litigation and family law litigation matters in the courts of Ontario and Canada are periodically published on our website. Please note that our website content is for informational purposes only, and should not be construed or relied upon to provide legal advice. If you require legal advice, please request an initial consultation with Gilbertson Davis LLP using the Request Consultation Form on this webpage or by contacting our Intake Coordinator on (416) 979-2020, ext. 223 (both subject to the Terms of Use described on our Contact page).

About the Author
David Alderson, LL.B, LL.M (Commercial and Corporate), Q.Arb, Lawyer and Arbitrator

David Alderson, LL.B, LL.M (Commercial and Corporate), Q.Arb, Lawyer and Arbitrator

David Alderson, LL.B, LL.M (Commercial and Corporate), Q.Arb, Lawyer and Arbitrator David has practiced over 35 years as a commercial and business litigator in diverse matters in the courts and in domestic and international arbitration proceedings in Ontario, England & Wales, Bermuda and Dubai. Also admitted in New York. The ADR Institute of Canada has accredited David as a Qualified Arbitrator (Q.Arb). He accepts appointment as a commercial, business, condo and marine arbitrator. Bio | Lawyer | Arbitrator | Contact

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *