Please note that the information provided herein is not legal advice and is provided for informational and educational purposes only. If you are an employer or employee and need legal advice with respect to shareholder or officer liability, 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. You can contact me directly if you need a lawyer.
In this blog, I’ll be discussing shareholder liability with respect to a Federal corporation (i.e. one governed by the Canadian Business Corporations Act). Generally, a shareholder can be liable under the Act or under the common (i.e. judge-made law).
Separate Legal Persons
We begin with the idea that corporations are separate legal entities from their owners and managers (i.e. directors, officers, employees). They are legal persons created by statutes (e.g. the Canadian Business Corporations Act). And since they are separate legal persons, this means that they are capable of entering into agreements on their own. This means that they are capable of being sued in court.
Limited Liability
For shareholders, because corporations are separate legal entities, their liability is limited. In other words, the personal assets of the shareholders are not exposed; if the corporation gets sued and is ordered to pay damages, it’s the corporation’s assets that are typically at risk of being used to pay those damages. Indeed, section 45(1) of the Act says that, except in certain circumstances, the shareholders are not liable for the corporation’s liabilities, acts or defaults.
What are the exceptions?
There are certain exceptions to the rule that shareholders are not liable. These exceptions can be found in the Act and in common law (i.e. judge-made law). Lets start off with the Act, shall we?
- First, under section 38(4), a creditor of the corporation can apply to court for an order COMPELLING A SHAREHOLDER TO PAY the corporation an amount representing a shareholder liability. You see, sometimes, the corporation will loan out money to a shareholder. This is a liability. Sometimes, those liabilities aren’t repaid and the big losers are those that the corporation owes money to. These are the creditors. To try getting their money back, they can bring an application to order the shareholder to repay their loan. Now it’s only in certain circumstances that they can do so (and you can speak to a lawyer about these circumstances).
- Second, under section 118(4), a director who is liable to pay money for inappropriately buying back shares or issuing dividends can apply to the court for an order compelling a shareholder to pay any money or property that was paid or distributed to the shareholder. So what’s inappropriate? Well, if the corporation bought back shares or issued dividends and doing so made the corporation unable to pay its liabilities, then that’s a no-no. There are other examples of what’s in appropriate and it’s best to speak with a lawyer about these circumstances.
- Third, even if the corporation is dissolved, a shareholder may be liable to the extent of any property they received from the corporation which is subject to a civil, criminal, or administrative claim against the corporation: section 126(4).
- Fourth, any PERSON who enters into a written contract in the name of or on behalf of a corporation before it comes into existence is PERSONALLY bound by the contract. This means that a person who signs a contract on behalf of the corporation and then later becomes a shareholder of that corporation WILL be liable under the contract. There is an exception, however: if the corporation adopts that written contract within a reasonable time after its existence, then that person will not be bound by the contract: section 14.
Ok so those are some examples of the Canada Business Corporations Act. What about other Acts? Well, you need to keep in mind that, if the corporation does things like fraudulently transfer property to a shareholder in order to defeat its creditors, then the shareholders can still be liable (e.g. Ontario Fraudulent Conveyances Act).
Common Law
So what about judge-made law (common law)? Well, in this regard, courts have found that the following situations may warrant the lifting of the corporate veil and the imposing of personal liability on shareholders:
- Sham/Cloak/Conduit/Alter Ego: Where there is a controlling shareholder or a one-man company, the company is not an alias for the owner per se. Due regard must be had to the law of principal and agent relation to the formation of the relationship. Whenever anyone uses control of the corporation to further his own rather than the corporation’s business, he or she may be liable for the corporation’s acts.
- Tort claims: Limited liability is fundamentally unfair to tort victims and other involuntary creditors and has undesirable consequences for labour claimants with severe informational disabilities and lack of ability to diversify and to absorb loss (source: Phillip I. Blumberg, Limited Liability and Corporate Groups, 11 J. CORP. L. 573, (1986) at pp. 616-19). As Anthony VanDuzer noted in Law of Partnerships and Corporations: “Courts have held that they have the power to ignore the separate existence of the corporation where to fail to do so would yield a result which is ‘flagrantly opposed to justice’….One could say that the courts are likely to be more sympathetic to claims by third parties, such as creditors and tort victims…”.
- Improper purpose: If a corporation is formed solely for an illegal, fraudulent, or improper purpose, then that company will be a mere cloak or sham. Some improper purpose examples include: (1) a corporation was formed to solicit customers which the incorporator could not personally solicit due to non-solicitation agreement with previous employer; (2) person conveyed a house to a company to preclude selling it; and (3) corporation with no assets gave an undertaking to the court to gain an advantage for the controlling shareholders.
- Thin capitalization: Ownership of all or almost all of the shares of a corporation by one individual, coupled with inadequate capitalization, may provide sufficient grounds for disregarding the corporate entity.
- Representations of unlimited liability: If a firm represented that its liability is unlimited, a subsequent assertion of limited liability would constitute fraud, and the veil may be lifted.
- Lack of respect for the corporate form: lack of proper corporation authorization for transaction and the use of shareholder funds to pay corporate obligations has been cited in some cases as supporting the disregard of corporate personality. Some courts have found such grounds insufficient to lift the corporate veil.









