Please keep in mind that this is not legal advice.  The information provided herein is for educational purposes only. If you would like to get in touch with a lawyer to help you draft, interpret, negotiate or resolve a dispute about a shareholders agreement or unanimous shareholder agreement, then you are encouraged to seek a professional (e.g. make a post on Dynamic Lawyers).  We have Ontario lawyers who can assist you in this regard (I would know, I’m one of them!).  If you want to get in touch with me directly, feel free to email me directly to discuss all your shareholder agreements needs!

Here, I’ll be discussing a basic template and things you should consider/pay attention to when thinking about these types of agreements.  For the purpose of this blog post, I’ll be discussing unanimous shareholder agreements in the context of the Canada Business Corporations Act.  Before diving into the nuts and bolts of the template agreement, however, I think I’ll take a step back to discuss some of the basis about shareholders agreements generally…

What is a Unanimous Shareholder Agreement?
A unanimous shareholder agreement is defined under the Act (s. 146) as a lawful written agreement among the shareholder of a corporation (some or all of them) that restricts, in whole or in part, the powers of the directors to manage or supervise the management of, the business and affairs of the corporation.  So a shareholder agreement is basically an agreement that allows the shareholders to usurp and override the powers of the directors (e.g. the shareholders become the directors or they agree to each appoint 1 director on the board of directors, etc.).

Violation of the agreement on the part of a shareholder can lead to a breach of contract claim.  If and when shareholders take over the power of the directors to manage the corporation, the Act gives them the same rights, power, duties, and liabilities as a director of the corporation.  This is important because generally shareholders’ liability is limited under the Act (in other words, unless a party can pierce the corporate veil, shareholder’s personal liability and personal assets cannot be exposed to having to pay for damages of the corporation, its representatives, agents, employees, directors, etc.).

Shareholder agreements are important to have early on in the corporation’s life because it details the rights and obligations of each shareholder, including management issues and share transfer provisions.  It puts expectations on the table early on.  Shareholder agreements are much harder to enter into between shareholders later on when progress (which carries with it political jealousies and potential infighting) has been made.

Finally worth mentioning is that the Act makes certain corporate requirements and powers subject t0 a shareholder agreement, including:

• Special majorities for director or shareholder votes (s. 6(3));
• The power to borrow and give security (s. 189);
• Issuance of shares (s. 25(1));
• Directors’ ability to manage, or supervise the management of the business and affairs of the corporation (s. 102);
• The making, amending or repealing of by-laws (s. 103);
• The appointing of officers (s. 121);
• Directors and officers compliance with a unanimous shareholders agreement (s. 122(2)); and
• Directors and officers remuneration (s. 125).

A copy of the shareholder agreement must be kept at the corporate head office (along with the other documents in the minute book).

How much does a Shareholder Agreement cost?
Shareholder agreements vary in cost (e.g. from $2,500 to $10,000), depending on the complexity of the provisions in the unanimous shareholder agreement.  For example:

• What will be the business of the corporation?  Will this be restricted?
• Who are the parties (e.g. voting and non-voting shareholders)?
• What mechanism will be used by the shareholders to elect or appoint board members?
• What mechanism will be used by the shareholders to vote their shares?
• What mechanisms will exist for shareholders to sell or transfer their shares (e.g. shotgun, put/call, consent sales, auctions, piggy back, drag a long, etc.)?
• What about compensation for shareholders who become working shareholders/directors?
• What about working shareholders who become inactive?  How will their shares be treated upon inactive?
• What about confidentiality, non-solicitation, and proprietary information provisions?  Are these needed?
• How will the agreement be terminated?  Can dissolution result from a shareholder complaining about a breach of the agreement?
• General provisions such as notice, entire agreement, currency, assignment, severability, waiver, independent legal advice, etc.

So with these things taken care of, let’s get into the real meat and potatoes of a shareholder agreement template, shall we?

Parties
Make sure to properly identify the parties.   You should have the correct spelling of the parties’ names.  Also, identifying features such as “X is a corporation incorporated under the laws of Canada with a mailing address at” is also good.  If you have too many parties, you may want to use a Schedule, where all of the parties for example are holders of a particular class of shares, etc.

Recitals
Here, you’ll want to put some basic information about the corporation, the parties, and the reason for their entering into a unanimous shareholder agreement.   It’s pretty common to see something in this section like:

• The authorized capital of the Corporation is X;
• The issued and outstanding shares of the Corporation is X;
• The parties want to enter into this agreement to fix and determine their respective rights, duties, obligations, etc. with respect to each other and the Corporation.

Preliminary Matters
In the first real section of the unanimous shareholder agreement, you’ll probably want the parties to confirm the truth and completeness of the recitals and define terms used throughout the Agreement.

Business of the Corporation
In this section, you may want to define the business of the corporation.  This will come in handy with respect to non-compete provisions and agreements which restrict parties’ ability to compete with the Corporation in the business (however that is defined).

Operation and Control of the Corporation
Here, it’s typical to find provisions that say that the discretion and powers of the directors to manage and supervise the management of the corporation are being restricted and usurped by the Shareholders.  Essentially, the Shareholders are relieving the Directors of their powers.

The provisions in this section go on to provide details – often akin to the Corporation’s by laws – on how the Shareholders as both the Directors and the Shareholders will conduct meetings (e.g. nominees, notice, quorum, casting votes, elections and appointments, passing resolutions, etc.).

The provisions in this section may also include specific requirements for the Corporation to enter into contracts (e.g. X number of Directors required) or for the Corporation to do things with respect to issuing shares, borrowing money, selling or leasing Corporate property, amending the Corporation’s articles, continuing the Corporation in another jurisdiction, winding up or dissolving the Corporation, etc.  These things may require special majorities (i.e. majorities which are not specified anywhere in the Act).

You’ll also find provisions in this section of the unanimous shareholder agreement dealing with things like who the officers of the Corporation will be, keeping proper books of account, appointing a banker, etc.

Restrictions on the Issue and Transfer of Shares
This is a very important part of any shareholder agreement: restrictions on share transfers.  There are many ways to restrict transfers on shares, some of which include:

• General prohibition against the Corporation and the Directors for issuing new shares.
• General prohibition against existing shareholders from transferring, selling, assigning, etc. their existing shares.
• A requirement that any party that does, through one of the permissible ways of acquiring shares, acquire shares becomes bound to and a party of the unanimous shareholder agreement.

Here are some of the ways in which share transfers are permitted/restricted:

• Consent Sale: a shareholder can transfer their shares after obtaining the consent of a pre-determined number or percentage of other shareholders.
• Right of First Refusal: a shareholder who receives an offer from a third party for the purchase of their shares must first offer the other existing shareholders the opportunity to purchase those same shares on terms, for example, that are equivalent to the third party’s offer.
• Shot Gun Buy-Sell: a shareholder can name a price at which it is willing to either buy or sell its shares.  The offer is then presented to other shareholders who have a specific amount of time to decide whether to accept the offer.
• Right to Come Along (Piggy-Back): when a shareholder who sells to a third party, the other shareholders are entitled to have their shares sold on, for example, the same terms to that third party.
• Right to Take Along (Drag Along): when a shareholder sells to a third party, the other shareholders are forced to have their shares sold on, for example, the same terms, to that third party.
• Option to Purchase (Call Option): this right gives a shareholder/Corporation the option to purchase shares in certain circumstances (these are called Triggering Events) from the Corporation/shareholder.
• Option to Sell (Put Option): this right gives a shareholder/Corporation the option to sell shares in certain circumstances from the Corporation/shareholder.
• Auction: an auction is a mechanism whereby shares are sold to the highest bidder (or on certain terms of the auction) to third parties.

In each of these circumstances, there are a few common variables: timing or an event occurring, valuing the shares, and rights/obligations affecting the other shareholders, closing provisions, identification of the buyer/seller/third parties (if any), etc.

Confidentiality
If a Shareholder receives Confidential Information (which should be a defined term) in the course of being a Shareholder, Director, Officer, employee, etc. then they should be restricted in what they can do with that information.  I’ve previously blogged about confidentiality agreements, so you can refer to that blog for more information about drafting, understanding and negotiating confidentiality agreements here.

Proprietary Rights
This section will deal with things like defining intellectual property rights (remember that there should be a definition for both proprietary rights and developed proprietary rights), who they belong to, the waiving of any moral rights under the Canada Copyright Act, and an agreement to obtain protection of intellectual property rights.

Non Competition
This section will deal with the repercussions, if any, of a Shareholder who starts competing with the corporation in the Business (which should be a defined term).  To make these provisions enforceable, they should be specific enough (e.g. by identifying parties, the Business, a time line, etc.).  I’ve written a lot about restrictive covenants such as non-compete and non-solicitation clauses and I’d encourage you to check them out here (but make sure to contact a lawyer to have them properly drafted!):

• Introduction
• General Overview
• When to sign ‘em (employment context)
• Too vague / unclear
• Justification Test
• Traps to watch out for (employment context)

Dispute Resolution Clauses
If you want to avoid the cost, time, headache, and uncertainty of litigating disputes in respect of the Shareholder Agreement, you might want to include a dispute resolution clause.  These clauses can say something like: the parties agree that any and all disputes and questions that arise between any of the parties in connection with the Shareholder Agreement (or construction or interpretation or application thereof), any section of the Shareholder Agreement, or any document, act, omission, etc. related to the Shareholder Agreement shall be resolved by mediation or arbitration (or perhaps mediation fist, and then arbitration).  In either case, you should specify how many mediator(s) and arbitrator(s) will be appointed, who will pay for them, where the mediation or arbitration will be held, how the procedure will be determined (by the parties or by the mediator or arbitrator?) and whether an appeal is available from the decision of the arbitrator (mediator decisions are generally non-binding).

Termination
Here, provisions may be put in place to initiate termination of the agreement where:

• There is only 1 shareholder left.
• A shareholder dies, becomes disabled, or goes bankrupt, etc.
• There is a breach of the shareholder agreement.
• A specific number or percentage of shareholders mutually agree to terminate the agreement.

General Terms
Here are some of the general terms that I’ve typically found in Shareholder Agreements (and other agreements for that matter):

• Notice (how do the parties give notice under the agreement for things like termination).
• Further Assurance (sometimes, you need the parties to the agreement to give additional representations and warranties such that they say they have all the requisite power and authority to do everything they’ve promised to do under the Agreement and that they will do those things as promised).
• Assignment (e.g. is this to be done by the parties having to consent in writing?).
• Survival of terms (i.e. if a term is found by a court to be void, should the rest of the agreement survive?).
• Governing Law (which jurisdiction governs the interpretation and enforcement of the agreement?).
• Amendment (how is this to be done?).
• Entire Agreement (i.e. this agreement supersedes all other agreements – whether oral or written – relating to the same subject matters in the agreement)
• Waiver (e.g. no failure or delay of a party to enforce or exercise its rights under the agreement constitutes a waiver, etc.).
• Interpretation (singular vs. plural; masculine vs. feminine, section headings, etc.)
• Power of Attorney (shareholders sometimes require that, if any shareholder neglects or refuses or is unable to execute or deliver any document required to be delivered, then they shall be deemed to have appointed the Corporation as his or her lawyer attorney and agent for such purposes).
• Independent Legal Advice (an acknowledgment by the parties that they have been told to and have received independent legal advice concerning the nature and substance of the Shareholder Agreement).
• Severability (in case one provision is struck down and rendered invalid doesn’t mean the rest of the agreement is).
• Currency (in which currency do dollar amounts referenced in the Shareholder Agreement pertain to?).

Please keep in mind that there are many other kinds of terms and conditions you can find in the general terms section of this agreement.  You should consult with a lawyer to address these general terms.

Execution
The final section of the agreement (other than any schedules or exhibits) requires that the parties, or duly authorized representatives of the parties with the power to bind, execute the agreement.  It is sometimes a requirement that witnesses be present and sign their names alongside the parties’.

In conclusion, this blog has discussed a basic unanimous shareholder agreement template.  You should note, however, that the particular details of a unanimous shareholder agreement vary depending on the needs of the shareholders and the business.  These documents should be put together by lawyers (such as myself) who are trained, knowledgeable, and experienced professionals.

written by admin \\ tags: board of directors, breach of contract, business corporations, canada business, contract claim, lawyer, legal advice, liabilities, nuts and bolts, ontario lawyers, regard, shareholder agreement, shareholder agreements, shareholders agreement, shareholders agreements

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 Ontario Not-For-Profit Corporations, you should seek professional assistance (e.g. make a post on Dynamic Lawyers).  We have Toronto and Ontario not-for-profit lawyers registered on the website who can answer your questions, represent you in litigation, or help resolve a dispute.  I would know – I’m one of them and you can contact me directly - michael@carabashlaw.com.

Follow up on other blogs I’ve written about Ontario not for profit corporations, I thought it would be worth discussing what happens if there is an internal dispute concerning an Ontario Not-For-Profit Corporation. Take the following example.  The By-Laws (power-giving documents)  say something or fail to say something about a specific procedure – for example, procedural requirements that must be followed for holding a member meeting or having members vote for a board of directors.  At the end of the day, someone (e.g. a director, officer, or member) cries foul for procedural irregularity and are contemplating court action.  The question comes up: how have Ontario courts responded previously when faced with these types of matters?

Basically, Ontario Courts dealing with disputes about procedural irregularities involving not-for-profit corporations have observed that:

• Courts will be loathe to interfere in the internal working of not-for-profit corporations absent some demonstrated evidence that any procedural irregularities went to the heart of the electoral process or lead to a result which does not reflect the wishes of the majority.
• Courts will not intervene with determinations made by a non-share capital corporation in accordance with its by-laws provided the corporation does not demonstrate bad faith or act contrary to the rules of natural justice.
• The relationship between a not-for-profit corporation and its members is contractual: only in certain circumstances, or where there are contractual rights created by the not-for-profit corporation’s by-laws, will the member be able to enforce their rights under the law.
• It is only for a not-for-profit corporation (and not a court) to determine its corporate governance documents. Courts should not get generally get involved in the internal governance matters of a not-for-profit corporation.

What follows is a brief summary of the past cases where Ontario courts have made decisions concerning internal governance disputes of not-for-profit corporations.  You are cautioned again not to rely on these cases (as they may no longer be good law and may not apply to your particular situation) and to seek professional help by making a post on Dynamic Lawyers (or contact me directly - michael@carabashlaw.com).

In Lee v. Lee’s Benevolent Assn. of Ontario, [2004] O.J. No. 6232, members of an Ontario not-for-profit corporation alleged irregularities in the conduct of an election of directors and sought to invalidate that election. Specifically, the applicants primarily claimed that some ballots were cast in advance of the election date. There was nothing in the corporation’s by-laws permitting the advance voting. While Nordheimer J. admitted that this caused an irregularity in the election, he did not accept this irregularity as invalidating the election. Indeed, he held that, notwithstanding this technical failure, there was no evidence or suggestion that the votes so cast did not reflect the wishes of the voters. He went on to state:

12 Non-profit organizations such as the Association should not be required to adhere rigorously to all of the technical requirements of corporate procedure for their meetings as long as the basic process is fair. Nor should the court be too quick to grant relief in such circumstances that may only serve to encourage a disgruntled member of such an organization to seek such relief. Absent some demonstrated evidence that any irregularities went to the heart of the electoral process or lead to a result which does not reflect the wishes of the majority, the court should be loathe to interfere in the internal workings of such groups.

The last sentence of this passage has been adopted by subsequent Ontario courts.

In Warriors of the Cross Asian Church v. Masih, (2007) 87 O.R. (3d) 169, members of an Ontario not-for-profit corporation alleged irregularities in the conduct of an election of directors and sought to invalidate that election. Specifically, the applicants claimed that no written notice of the meeting had been provided and no ballots had been used at the meeting to take the vote. Lederer J. found that the election of the board members did not comply with the Corporations Act and was therefore not valid. Citing the ruling in Lee v. Lee’s Benevolent Assn. of Ontario, Lederer J. held that the error in the instant case “goes to the very heart of an election” and ultimately ordered that the not-for-profit corporation be would up for its failure to adhere to the requirements of the Corporations Act.

In Rakowski v. Malagerio, [2007] O.J. No. 369, the member of an Ontario not-for-profit corporation (the Humber Students’ Federation) brought an application to challenge the validity of a policy which prevented directors from being members of non-sanctioned student associations or advocacy groups. Perell J. dismissed the application, finding that the not-for-profit corporation’s policy was reasonable, non-discriminatory and not contrary to public policy and the public interest, and that the policy had been enacted in good faith. Although the Humber Students’ Federation is a corporate entity, Perell J. commented that it was similar to an association or club and offered the following observations about why the court’s jurisdiction in the affairs of associations and clubs is problematic:

29 Traditionally, courts have expressed reluctance and sometimes a refusal to interfere with the internal affairs of associations and clubs. There are a variety of reasons for this attitude. One reason is that the nature of the relationship of the members of an association is intentionally designed by the members of the association to be informal and non-legal. Just as some promises are intended to be contractual and some are not, persons may decide to associate in informal ways that are not meant to call for judicial supervision. The courts tend to respect these choices. Another reason is that the legal classification of these associations does not fit neatly into the recognized categories of legal entities. Yet another reason is that there may be little the court could do if it assumed jurisdiction and the only solutions or remedies might rest with the members of the club or association.

30 The case law, however, reveals that courts do get involved in the affairs of associations and clubs. Sometimes, the court will decide a matter involving an association because the jurisdictional issue was simply not raised by the parties, who wished an answer from the court or did not appreciate that perhaps the matter of the dispute was non-juridical. Sometimes, the court will become involved if a principle of natural justice is breached. Here, one classic class of examples is the situation where a member of a club or association is expelled from the club or association or is temporarily or permanently disqualified from participating in its activities or is disciplined for breach of the club or association rules and the process of expulsion, disqualification, or discipline is fundamentally unfair. The courts will exercise a limited jurisdiction to ensure that an association or club does not violate the principles of natural justice. Sometimes, the court will become involved because the nature of the unincorporated association has evolved to be a legal entity that may be regulated by the courts at least for some purposes. This evolution appears to have occurred for trade unions; see: Berry v. Pulley, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 493 and registered political parties; see: Ahenakew v. MacKay (2004), 71 O.R. (3d) 130 (C.A.). Sometimes, the courts will become involved because, upon analysis, the court finds that the relationship between the members that constitute the association or club is contractual in nature and that the law of contract affords a basis for the court’s common law jurisdiction. Sometimes, there are special statutory provisions that empower the court with jurisdiction, and sometimes the members of the association or club circumvent the problem by relying on rules of civil procedure or legislation that authorizes the court to interpret documents or statutes and to make declarations.

In Alaimo v. Di Maio, 2008 CarswellOnt 3729 (Ont. S.C.J.), members of an Ontario not-for-profit corporation alleged irregularities in the conduct of an election of directors and sought to invalidate that election. Boswell J. dismissed that claim in light of the test set down by Nordheimer J. in Lee v. Lee’s Benevolent Assn. of Ontario and followed by Lederer J. in Warriors of the Cross Asian Church v. Masih. Boswell J. reviewed the evidence and held:

128 From a procedural point of view, therefore, there were no irregularities identified by the Applicants in their evidence that appear to me to be of a significant nature, and certainly none that could be described as going to the heart of the election.

In Polish Alliance of Canada, Branch 43 v. Polish Alliance of Canada, 2008 CarswellOnt 3729 (Ont. S.C.J.), members of an Ontario not-for-profit corporation alleged procedural irregularities in respect of a mortgage being registered against the corporation (among other things). Specifically, the members complained that they had not received notice of such mortgage and no resolution had been passed at the general convention prior to the mortgage being registered. The members wanted the corporation’s board to be suspended, a new annual general meeting convened, and full financial disclosure provided. Referencing Lee v. Lee’s Benevolent Assn. of Ontario and Warriors of the Cross Asian Church v. Masih, J.A. Thorburn J. held that:

21 The Court may resolve disputes regarding the affairs of a not-for-profit corporation where the process followed by the corporation is not a mere technical irregularity but is unfair and the results go to the heart of the process.

J.A. Thorburn J. ultimately ruled that the request for relief was premature as internal mechanisms provided by the corporation’s Constitution had not been exhausted. As such, he adjourned the proceedings pending the members’ exhaustion of the internal dispute resolution procedures.

In Sahaydakivski v. YMCA of Greater Toronto, [2006] O.. No. 1368 (Ont. S.C.J.), the YMCA of Greater Toronto expelled a member for breach of its by-law caused by his unbecoming conduct. The member brought an application for an order setting aside his expulsion, restoring his membership, and requiring the YMCA of Greater Toronto to disclose the name of the complainant. The member’s application was dismissed on the basis that the officers of the YMCA of Greater Toronto had exercised their authority to expel the member in accordance with their by-laws and in good faith. Belleghem J. wrote:

30 The court will not intervene on any finding of fact made by the [YMCA of Greater Toronto], provided that in arriving at its finding it complied with its own by-law, i.e. it carried out its contractual obligation to the applicant not to expel him except in accordance with by-laws to which the applicant acceded upon his entry into the association.

In McGee v. Beaver Valley Ski Club, 2006 CarswellOnt 2537 (Ont. S.C.J.), a member of a not-for-profit social club sued the club after being suspended for a period of one year following disciplinary hearings concerning his participation in certain municipal planning matters. Tulloch J. dismissed the member’s claim on the basis that the club had acted properly and in accordance with its by-law. In reaching that conclusion, Tulloch J. commented that:

39 In Conacher v. Rosedale Golf Assn., 2002 CarswellOnt 527 (Ont. S.C.J.), the court held that the relationship between a private club and a member is a contractual relationship. Only in certain circumstances, or when there are contractual rights created by the club’s by-laws, will the member be able to enforce rights under the law.

…

44 The Conacher decision was followed by a recent decision of this court, Sahaydakivski v. YMCA of Greater Toronto, 2006 CarswellOnt 2205 (Ont. S.C.J.). In this case, Justice Belleghem dismissed the applicant’s request to set aside his expulsion from the respondent organization. Justice Belleghem noted the following:

…

30 The court will not intervene on any finding of fact made by the respondent, provided that in arriving at its finding it complied with its own by-law, i.e. it carried out its contractual obligation to the applicant not to expel him except in accordance with by-laws to which the applicant acceded upon his entry into the association…

…

47 I find that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted properly, and in accordance with the BVSC by-law…

49 In a matter such as this, where the plaintiff is a voluntary member of an organization governed by a contractual relationship between the parties, my review of internal decisions made by the organization is limited.

In Chu v. Scarborough Hospital Corp.,[2007] 35 B.L.R. (4th) 254 (Ont. Div. Ct.), members of a not-for-profit corporation requisitioned a special meeting under the Corporations Act and the corporation’s By Law 1. The corporation’s board refused to call the meeting on the basis that those individuals’ memberships had expired. The members brought an application to have their memberships recognized. They were initially successful and Brown J. of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ordered the board to forthwith call the special meeting. The board appealed Brown J.’s decision. Linhares de Sousa JJ. of the Divisional Court upheld Brown J.’s decision and dismissed the appeal. In coming to that conclusion, Linhares de Sousa JJ. stated:

20 …the jurisprudence clearly establishes that the by-laws of non-share capital corporations incorporated pursuant to the Corporations Act, like the case at bar, constitute contractual obligations as between the members and the corporation (see Senez c. Montreal Real Estate Board, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 555 (S.C.C.), p. 7 and Sahaydakivski v. YMCA of Greater Toronto, [2006] O.J. No. 1368 (Ont. S.C.J.), paras. 28-30). Both the corporation and individuals who become members of the corporation undertake to comply with the constating documents and the by-laws, which are duly adopted by a majority of members entitled to vote, even if they disagree with those by-laws.

…

22 …the jurisprudence mentioned earlier also establishes that the Court will not intervene with determinations made by a non-share capital corporation in accordance with its by-laws provided the corporation does not demonstrate bad faith or act contrary to the rules of natural justice.

In Seong v. Korean Canadian Cultural Assn. of Metropolitan Toronto, [2007] O.J. No. 893 (Ont. S.C.J.), members of an Ontario not-for-profit corporation were split into factions regarding whether the corporation’s headquarters should be sold and new premises acquired. The situation became very confusing due in part to uncertainty and conflicts between the corporation’s Constitution, official by-laws, and proposed amendments to those by-laws. On these issues, Perell J. held that there was no reason for the court to intervene in the corporation’s internal affairs. He stated that the corporation does not need the court’s assistance to determine the authority of its own governance documents and that the court should not involve itself in the various internal governance affairs of the corporation (e.g. concerning amendments to the official by-laws, conflicts between governing documents, etc.). Some of Perell J.’s statements are noteworthy here:

44 …the Association does not need the court’s assistance to determine what legal status to give to the Constitution. All the Association need do is decide this matter itself in accordance with the provisions of the Corporations Act.

45 While the court may have a jurisdiction to interpret the corporate documents, it is not for the court to write the governance documents of the Association.

46 Moreover, it appears that the Association is attempting to write its own rules of governance by the enactment of amendments to the official by-laws. These amendments are to be put to the membership at the upcoming annual general meeting. The court should not get in the way of this effort and involve itself in the internal affairs of the Association.

…

49 In any event, this matter is an internal matter for the Association, and, standing alone, this matter would not justify the court ordering a special meeting of the members.

…

55 …ultimately these matters have to be resolved by the Board passing by-laws, which is already happening, and I do not see any reason for the court to get involved in these internal governance matters at this time.

58 …the matter of properly constituting a single board of directors will be resolved by the upcoming elections and annual general meeting of the members of the Association.

written by admin \\ tags: board of directors, corporation without share capital, electoral process, internal dispute, irregularities, litigation, ontario corporation without share capital, ontario not for profit corporation, procedural irregularities, procedural requirements, professional assistance, rules of natural justice

So what’s the difference between a shareholder, director, and officer in a limited liability corporation?  People often confuse directors and officers or believe that shareholders must also be a director and/or officer.  I’m going to spell it out here to dismiss all the confusion about these three parties by talking about their respective roles and responsibilities.

Shareholder
Shareholders own the corporation through their share ownership.  They have the right to attend and vote at meetings (assuming they have voting shares).  This often happens on an annual basis, but can happen sooner if they want to change the board of directors they elected.  Their role is that of hands-off manager: they delegate their decision-making powers to the board of directors they elect.  Shareholders aren’t totally out of the decision-making picture, however.  Shareholder must approve by-laws (i.e. power-giving documents which authorize corporate action) and vote on important matters concerning the corporation’s Articles of Incorporation (e.g. issuance of shares, new share class, restrictions on share transfers, restrictions on business, changing the corporation’s name, etc.).  But generally, shareholder do not participate int eh day-to0day operations unless they are also officers and/or directors.  However: there is no requirement that they be officers and/or directors.

Directors
Directors are elected by the shareholders.  The articles of incorporation specify the maximum and minimum number of directors there can be and the by-laws generally have provisions in place for things like director vacancies (e.g. by death, resignation, etc.).  Directors meet every so often to decide on long-term strategy and evaluate the progress of the corporation.  They themselves delegate decision-making on a daily or more routine basis to the officers of the corporation.  Directors are responsible for declaring and paying out dividends to shareholders and get involved in important corporate matters.

Officer
Officers are those individuals who manage the day to day affairs of the corporation.  They have titles like CEO, President, Treasurer, Vice-President, CFO, Secretary, etc. but these are just titles and there’s no formal requirement that they have a particular title.  The duties and responsibilities of the officers are generally spelled out in the corporate by-laws and more specifically spelled out in an employment contract.

written by admin \\ tags: articles of incorporation, board of directors, corporate matters, corporation directors, limited liability corporation, roles and responsibilities, shareholder, shareholders

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 transferring shares from a limited liability company or amending a corporation’s articles of incorporation, you should seek professional assistance (e.g. make a post on Dynamic Lawyers).  We have Toronto and Ottawa business lawyers registered on the website who can answer your questions or help you with your  Ontario or Federal corporation.

So you want to sell your shares, eh? Well, the first step to actually selling your shares is to determine if the corporation’s Articles of Incorporation have anything to say about transferring the shares.

Many a time, you’ll find standard boilerplate language that says the following in part 8 of the Ontario corporation’s Articles of Incorporation:

The right to transfer shares of the Corporation shall be restricted in that no shareholder shall be entitled to transfer any share or shares of the Corporation without the approval of:

1. The directors of the Corporation expressed by resolution passed by the votes cast by a majority of the directors of the Corporation at a meeting of the board of directors or signed by all of the directors of the Corporation; OR

2. The shareholders of the Corporation expressed by resolution passed by the votes cast by a majority of the shareholders who voted in respect of the resolution or signed by all shareholders entitled to vote on that resolution.

So the articles of incorporation are basically saying that a resolution is required by those in charge of the corporation to permit the share transfer.  Otherwise, someone could yell ‘foul’ and put the whole share transfer up into the air (leading to court case).  This shouldn’t be a problem if there’s only 1 shareholder, 1 director, and 1 officer (all happening to be the same person).  But disputes may arise where a group of shareholders try to transfer their shares without the directors’ or other shareholders’ approval.

So, make sure you read the Articles of Incorporation to see if there are any restrictions on transferring the shares.   The key thing to keep in mind is that if, for some reason, it’s too difficult for a shareholder to obtain the approval necessary to have their shares transferred, then they might make a case to amend the Articles of Incorporation to remove those restrictions.  Attempting to amend the Articles is not easy: you need a resolution from two thirds of the shareholders entitled to vote and who cast their vote at a special meeting.

As an alternative to having restrictions on share transfers in the Articles of Incorporation, shareholders could simply place such restrictions in a Shareholders Agreement.  Amendments could be made without the need to have the corporation file Articles of Amendment.

written by admin \\ tags: articles of incorporation, board of directors, business lawyers, court case, limited liability company, ontario corporation, share transfer, toronto

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 or reviewing Articles of Incorporation, you should seek professional assistance (e.g. make a post on Dynamic Lawyers).  We have Toronto business lawyers registered on the website who can answer your questions or help you draft and submit articles of incorporation for Ontario or Federal corporations.

Incorporating a business: a few words should be written about the roles and responsibilities of those involved with and acting on behalf of or for the corporation.

A corporation is created by having the initial directors file articles of incorporation in the jurisdiction in which the corporation is going to have its head office (provincial licenses will also be required to operate the corporation in particularly provinces).

After this, the directors have got a few things to do to get the corporation organized and up and running.  For example, they will need to pass a By-Law (which gives the corporation’s directors power-making authority), pass director resolutions, issue shares to shareholders (and have the shareholders subscribe to shares), have the shareholders ratify the by-law, have the shareholders vote in the new directors, etc.  Without these essential steps and documents, a corporation is not a legally operational entity.

The board of directors is comprised of individuals and typically a chairperson who oversee the affairs of the corporation , but not typically on a day-to-day basis.  The directors are typically paid to sit on the board, but it’s not a lot of money (as compared with the corporate officers) because they don’t meet that often and are not responsible for the day-to-day affairs of the corporation (as officers are).  The board is typically comprised of individuals with expertise in certain areas and who sit on a number of corporate boards.  They offer their insight and are accountable to the shareholders who vote them in.

For their part, shareholders are the owners of the corporation and have the power to vote in the directors of the corporation.  If there is only one sole shareholder holding all of the shares of the corporation then that person could vote in all of the directors.  It is possible to have only one shareholder and one director of a corporation.

Finally, officers of a corporation are appointed by the board of directors in order to oversee the day-to-day management of the corporation’s affairs.  The titles of officers are not that important, although traditionally most people have come to know officers as one of the following: President, Chief Executive Officer, Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer, Secretary, Vice-President, etc.  It does not really matter what these individuals are called.  Often, their titles, roles, and responsibilities will be outlined in a corporate by-law, which establishes their position and sets out their qualifications, powers, duties, etc.  Officers can be replaced by the board of directors, to whom they are accountable.

So to summarize: shareholders with voting power will vote in the directors on an annual basis (or sooner in certain circumstances), directors have the power to manage the corporation and they meet only a few times a year, and officers (e.g. CEO, VP, CFO, Treasurer, President, etc.) are the people who run the corporation on a daily basis and who are appointed (not elected) by the directors on an annual (or sooner in certain circumstances) basis.

written by admin \\ tags: answers to questions, articles of incorporation, assets and liabilities, blog, board of directors, breach, breach of contract, business lawyers, circumstances, contracts, corporation, federal corporations, federal government, government fees, incorporating a business, incorporation, incorporators, initial directors, insurance, issue shares, jurisdiction, lawyer, lawyers, legal advice, legal entity, limited liability company, nuans, nuans name search, professional assistance, provincial licenses, report, resolutions, search report, separation, shareholders, shareholders vote, toronto, toronto business