Canada: At A Glance: Say-On-Pay In Canada In 2011

Last Updated: September 21 2011
Article by Ken Hugessen, Catherine McCall, Scott Munn and Georges Soare


Approximately 70 companies in Canada, including a majority of the TSX 60, held a say-on-pay vote in 2011, making it the first year that a significant number of management advisory votes on executive compensation were submitted to shareholders. Leading up to the proxy season, many issuers and boards were concerned about the ramifications of say-on-pay and what might be in store:

  • How willing would shareholders be to vote against management and would shareholder concerns about executive compensation manifest itself through high levels of negative votes?
  • How should boards and compensation committees interpret and respond to different levels of shareholder support?
  • What could be expected from the proxy advisory firms, given that many had expressed concerns about the increase in influence that say-on-pay might provide to firms such as ISS and Glass Lewis?

Now that proxy season is over, what conclusions can be drawn from the say-on-pay voting results? It seems a fair assessment to say that the first year was uneventful. Based on the voting results filed by Canadian issuers that had an advisory vote this year:

  • None of the advisory votes failed
  • The average level of support was 94%
  • Only 11 companies received support below 90%, and of those only two were below 80%1
  • The lowest levels of support were 64% at Thompson Creek Metals, and 75% at Pan American Silver

How do these results compare with the U.S. experience, given 2011 was the first year that Dodd-Frank mandated say-on-pay vote for public companies? As the following table indicates, U.S. companies in general received lower levels of support than their Canadian counterparts:

Commentators in the U.S. have disagreed about how to interpret these results: they have been viewed variously as a "non-event", a success for shareholders, a bust, an endorsement by shareholders of the current executive pay model and finally as a distraction from more serious shareholder concerns3.

Most do agree, however, that say-on-pay in the U.S. has increased shareholder engagement and improved disclosure. A similar consensus about these consequences of say-on-pay seems to exist in Canada.

Fighting Back

In the U.S. say-on-pay has also given rise to a new phenomenon: companies responding publicly to negative voting recommendations from proxy advisors ISS and Glass Lewis, perhaps most notably the venerable GE (see our May 2011 briefing For Shareholders and their Advisors, Pay for Performance Remains a Work in Progress at: Over 100 companies either filed additional proxy materials or issued press releases rebutting the claims or analysis of the proxy advisors4. While we have seen no sign of this yet in Canada, it may only be a matter of time until the practice migrates north.

Impact of Proxy Advisors' Recommendations


It is clear from the U.S. experience that proxy advisors, in particular ISS, have a significant impact on say-on-pay vote results. All of the companies whose say-on-pay vote failed had received a negative recommendation from ISS and the average support rate with a negative voting recommendation was 25% lower than for those without5. However, it is also clear that a negative recommendation is not determinative. Indeed, less than 15% of the issuers where ISS issued a negative voting recommendation (approximately 13% of the companies covered by ISS) failed their say-on-pay vote6.


It would not be surprising if proxy advisors have a similar influence in Canada though the smaller sample makes it harder to confirm, as does the fact that information on the number of negative recommendations made in Canada and the names of the companies affected does not become publicly available to the extent it does in the U.S.

It is our understanding that ISS issued a negative recommendation on say-on-pay for only two Canadian companies this year (or approximately 3% of the 71 companies covered), one of which was Thompson Creek, which received, as noted above, only 64% votes in favour, the lowest support in Canada reported this year. The name of the second company and its voting results are not public. Glass Lewis issued a negative recommendation on Pan American Silver‟s advisory vote, which received the second lowest support level of 75% (ISS had issued a positive voting recommendation). These results are consistent with the expectation that Glass Lewis‟ recommendations would not have as great an impact as those of ISS given the latter‟s market dominance.

Based on the 2011 results, Glass Lewis was apparently more willing to make negative voting recommendations on say-on-pay than was ISS, suggested by the fact that Glass Lewis issued eight negative recommendations on say-on-pay this year out of 56 companies covered (or 14%).

What Should Boards Do?

Keep up to date with changes in proxy advisors guidelines. Given the influence of advisors, boards of say-on-pay companies would be wise to stay up to date on advisors‟ policies with respect to executive compensation practices. Negative voting recommendations from ISS, for example, are in the majority of cases based on a company‟s failure to pass ISS‟ own pay for performance test, as was the case with Thompson Creek7. Other ISS policies that provide the basis for negative recommendations deal with "problematic pay practices", such as tax gross ups or excessive severance. It is our understanding that the second negative ISS recommendation on say-on-pay was the result of the company‟s having a tax gross up provision.

Determine rationale for shareholder negative votes even when substantial majority in favour e.g. negatives greater than 10%. While the majority of support levels were high (greater than 90%), there is still sufficient variability among say-on-pay voting results in Canada that boards and compensation committees will want to remain vigilant. They will want to:

  • Satisfy themselves that the executive compensation policies in place are consistent with rewarding long term performance that is tied to company strategy
  • Confirm the high quality of disclosure in the CD&A
  • Consider, if they have not already done so, putting processes in place for communicating with shareholders beyond the annual meeting forum so that they are not blindsided by shareholder responses to compensation policies

Where appropriate, prepare for a negative scenario. Based on this year‟s reported voting results, shareholder support level below 80% is clearly anomalous, with only two of 71 companies in that category. The board of a company in that position should be prepared to:

  • Confirm that it is committed to the pay policies that prompted the negative votes
  • Reach out to the company‟s shareholders, and perhaps proxy advisors if appropriate, to determine which compensation practices are the source of shareholder dissatisfaction. We have seen direct engagement lead to resolution of shareholder concerns and a change in proxy advisor‟s recommendation. Engagement can also help to avoid a similar or more negative result the following year, in the form of a majority negative vote or withhold votes from compensation committee members.
  • If a reasonable effort to engage with proxy advisors does not lead to a common understanding, or if there is no opportunity to engage, consider the option of a public response to a negative proxy advisor recommendation, either through additional SEDAR filings or a press release. This allows the board to respond fully to criticism, present the board‟s position, and defend its compensation decisions.

Arguably, given that only 15% of Canadian say-on-pay companies received less than 90%, any level of support below 90% should also prompt some inquiry as to what concerns shareholders have and lead to discussions with shareholders and a potential re-affirmation of executive compensation policies and practices.


All in all, it was a relatively uneventful say-on-pay season for Canadian companies, particularly when compared to the U.S. experience (which arguably was in itself relatively tame). This is not surprising given the differing governance backdrops between the two countries – the Canadian environment is less confrontational and litigious and thankfully lacks the more fractious issuer-shareholder relationship frequently observed in the U.S.

To recap, to help ensure a continued calm, there are several relatively easy steps that boards and compensation committees may want to take:

  • Stay informed of the latest developments on the executive compensation and governance front
  • Periodically assess their issuer‟s plans and practices against guidelines set out by institutional shareholders and shareholder advisors
  • When making any executive pay decision, always ask "how will this be disclosed"
  • Where there may be a contentious matter, engage with shareholders as appropriate, and prepare contingencies, including a potential public defense of the board‟s position

Say-on-pay has arrived with none of the drama that some were expecting and most issuers will want to take reasonable steps to help ensure that it stays that way. For the majority of situations, the few steps outlined above should allow the calm to continue. In some cases, further engagement with shareholders and their advisors will be warranted. We expect very few situations will require that differences be addressed in a public forum.


1 Note that because some companies choose to disclose only whether the advisory vote passed and not levels of approval and disapproval, there may be additional companies with less than 90% support

2 U.S. data is from James Barrall of Latham & Watkins LLP, Say-on-pay in 2011: Lessons and Coming Attractions, Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation, August 5, 2011

3 See for example:

  • James Barrall, (ibid) "those that expected Say-on-pay to be a non-event‟, as it has historically been in the UK, have been sorely disappointed‟"
  • Say-on-pay – A Victory for Shareholders and the Executive Pay Model, Ira Kay, Pay Governance LLC, The Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation, August 8, 2011 - voting results show that Say-on-pay is a success, that the results demonstrate an endorsement by shareholders of the current executive compensation model
  • Investors 'Say-on-pay" is a Bust John Helyer,, June 16, 2011
  • Governance eminence grise Robert Monks has said that the results show that Say-on-pay is a "cruel hoax" and a distracting sideshow from the real issue of providing shareholders with the ability to effectively remove directors. Regulation Whack-a-Mole: Bob Monks' Take on Say-on-pay, Governance Metrics International blog, July 12, 2011
  • Others have parsed the results and concluded that support level below 80% is the threshold below which companies should be concerned and view the results as a failure. The Votes Are in - Deconstructing the 2011 Say-on-pay Vote, Michael R. Littenberg, of Schulte Roth &

4 Say-on-pay Results: Russell 3000 - Shareholder Voting and Responses to Proxy Advisers, Semler Brossy, May 11, 2011

5 Latham & Watkins

6 Semler Brossy

7 Briefly, ISS has a two part pay for performance test: a company will fail if (i) its one and three year TSR are below the median of companies in its four digit GICS group, and (ii) CEO compensation has gone up in the last fiscal year.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.