Words and Phrases - "hold"

The appellant subscribed $310 million for units of various income funds, which were intended to qualify as mutual fund trusts on the basis that each had received subscription proceeds totaling $128,250 from 171 investors, with each such investor subscribing for 100 units at $7.50 per unit. Whether they so qualified turned on whether they each satisfied the distribution condition in ITR 4801(a)(i)(A)—that there had been a lawful distribution of units of the trust to the public in circumstances in which a prospectus or similar document was not required to be filed—and that the 150-minimum beneficiary condition in ITR 4801(b) was satisfied.

(Monaghan JA stated that she was "far from convinced" (para. 169) as to whether the parties were correct in their mutual view that an offering memorandum was not a similar distribution document to a prospectus, so that the distribution condition in ITR 4801(a)(ii)—that a class of units of the trust is qualified for distribution to the public—was not relevant. However, nothing turned on this since, in light of the definition in ITR 4803(2)(a) of "qualify for distribution to the public," this alternate distribution test, like ITR 4801(a)(i)(A), required that there have been a lawful distribution of units to the public.)

Regarding the 150-minimum beneficiary condition, Monaghan JA found that such beneficiaries need not have acquired their units in a lawful distribution to the public. She stated (at para. 133) that “the minimum beneficiary condition might also be satisfied through a unitholder transferring units to others” and (at para. 145) that she was satisfied that, in the context of the ITA, "’hold’ is intended to mean ‘own’, unless the context in which it is used indicates otherwise” – which was not the case regarding Regulation 4801. Furthermore, the ITA's use of "hold" and "acquire" suggested they have different meanings (para. 147). Thus, the test of 150 beneficiaries holding units did not require that such units have been acquired from any particular persons.

Regarding the distribution condition in ITR 4801(a)(ii), Monaghan JA found (at para. 214) that the Tax Court did not err in interpreting a distribution as meaning “distribution in the collective sense,” i.e., an issuance to all those subscribing in a particular offering. Furthermore, the reference to a "lawful" distribution referred to compliance “with the exemption relied on under relevant provincial securities laws” (para. 218). Here, the exemption from a prospectus-filing requirement that had been relied on was the offering memorandum exemption (OME) coupled with a condition stipulated in the offering memorandum (OM) that a minimum of 160 investors subscribe.

She indicated (at para. 221) that, although she accepted that “not every deviation from the prospectus requirement or prospectus exemptions, or from the terms of the prospectus or OM, will necessarily lead to the conclusion that the distribution is unlawful, even if it might attract liability or enforcement action,” the appellant agreed that such 160-investors-minimum specified in the OM "was an essential term" (para. 229). The Tax Court had made a non-reversible finding that 39 of the subscribers in each fund were minors. Agreeing with the Tax Court that this thus established that such minimum had not been lawfully met, she stated (at para. 247) that, like the Tax Court, she had "difficulty accepting that provincial securities regulators envisaged minors, some as young as two years old, subscribing for units based on the OME." She also stated (at para. 250) that "it was open to the Tax Court to find that the income funds did not take any steps to waive the condition regarding legal capacity and age of majority."

Moreover, she found no reasonable error in the Tax Court's “finding regarding adults signing subscriptions and paying for units for other adults and minors” (para. 262), contrary to the representations of the investors that each investor was purchasing "as principal." This further supported the Tax Court's conclusion (at para. 288) that the income funds had not “complied with an essential term in their OMs: that they issue units to a minimum of 160 investors in compliance with the OME.”