Canada: Ontario Court Provides Clarification On Requisitioned Shareholders' Meetings

Last Updated: August 15 2013
Article by Sandra Zhao

Co-author: Devina D'Silva, student at law

The recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Wells v Bioniche Life Sciences Inc1 has provided some clarity and guidance on how a Court will interpret the relevant provisions of the Canada Business Corporations Act ("CBCA") in determining whether a dissident shareholder has the right to requisition and call a shareholders' meeting.

The facts

Bioniche Life Sciences Inc. ("Bioniche") is a CBCA company that develops, manufactures and markets biopharmaceuticals for animals and humans. In April 2013, William Wells ("Wells") acquired just over 5% of the outstanding common shares of Bioniche. The day after Wells' share purchase settled, he sent Bioniche a requisition to call a meeting of shareholders to replace all of the directors of Bioniche (the "First Requisition") while holding his shares through an intermediary. The board of Bioniche (the "Board") declared the First Requisition invalid because it was made by a beneficial shareholder and not a registered shareholder, and did not provide adequate information to allow shareholders to make a decision. Specifically, the First Requisition did not provide names or any other information regarding the proposed nominees. At the same time, the Board also announced that it had called its annual meeting of shareholders for November 5, 2013 (a date more than six months following receipt of the First Requisition) and fixed September 9, 2013 as the record date for such meeting.

In May 2013, following the rejection of the First Requisition, Wells registered most of his shares under his own name and submitted a second requisition once again requesting the removal of the directors, and also identifying new proposed directors (the "Second Requisition"). The Board also rejected this Second Requisition on the grounds that the Board was under no legal obligation to call a meeting of shareholders, as the record date was already fixed for a scheduled meeting relating to the election of directors with notice to the shareholders. Additionally, the Board rejected the Second Requisition because in exercising its business judgment, it determined that it was not in the best interest of Bioniche and its shareholders to proceed with a special meeting given that the company's annual general meeting was already scheduled for November 2013.

After the second rejection, in June 2013, Wells together with another shareholder (the "Dissident Shareholders") commenced an application to the Court seeking an order requiring the directors of Bioniche, or alternatively the Court, to call a special meeting of shareholders to vote on the removal and election of directors. Twenty days later, Wells called a special meeting of shareholders for August 27, 2013 and the Dissident Shareholders amended their application to seek a declaration that they were entitled to call such meeting. In response, Bioniche applied to the Court requesting that the meeting called by the Dissident Shareholders be declared invalid.

The findings regarding the first requisition

The Court confirmed previous court decisions in Canada to hold that the First Requisition was invalid for two reasons:

1. Only registered holders of at least 5% of outstanding voting shares are entitled to requisition a meeting.

Section 143(1) of the CBCA entitles the "holders" of not less than 5% of the outstanding voting shares of a corporation to requisition directors to call a meeting of shareholders. As "holders" is not defined in the CBCA, the Court looked to other sections of the CBCA and case law to find that it is within the powers of a CBCA corporation to proceed on the basis that "holder" means the registered holder of the shares.2 As the registered shareholder is the person exclusively entitled to vote and exercise all rights and powers of an owner of a security, Bioniche was entitled to find that Wells, as a beneficial owner, was not a "holder" carrying the right to vote at a meeting as set out in section 143(1) of the CBCA. The Court confirmed that although Bioniche had the option to treat a beneficial holder as a "holder" under section 143(1), it was entitled to decline to do so as well.

2. A requisition that does not provide adequate information permitting shareholders to make an informed decision concerning the business stated therein is invalid.

The Court found that sections 135 and 143 of the CBCA strongly suggest that the requisition must contain sufficient detail to allow shareholders to make an informed decision about the business proposed to be transacted at the meeting by the requisitioner. If the requisition calls for a meeting to elect new directors, sufficient detail would include the names and qualifications of the proposed new directors. The Court rejected the argument that a requisition would be valid as long as the nominee directors' names and background information are provided sufficiently before the board prepares its management proxy circular, noting that such information could well be relevant to a board's consideration of how to respond to a requisition. Accordingly, the Court found that the Dissident Shareholders did not have good reason to leave out the names and biographical information of the proposed directors, and that this lack of information was enough to invalidate the First Requisition even if Wells had been a registered holder at the time.

The findings regarding the second requisition

The Board did not take the position that the Second Requisition was invalid, instead arguing that it was under no legal obligation to call a meeting of shareholders in response to it. The Court confirmed that the Board was entitled to deny the Second Requisition pursuant to section 143(3)(a) of the CBCA, which provides a statutory exception to the obligation for directors to call a requisitioned meeting if a record date for a shareholders' meeting has already been fixed and notice of it has been given.

The Board complied with the CBCA in setting the record date for the November meeting not less than 21 days and not more than 60 days before the date of the meeting. Bioniche had also given notice of the record date within the prescribed period and by the required means through notice in the Globe and Mail and press release. As Bioniche had fixed and given notice of the record date for its November annual general meeting before it had received the Second Requisition, it thereby brought itself within the exception offered by section 143(3)(a).

However, the Court recognized the principle stated in Paulson & Co Inc v Algoma Steel Inc that a qualifying shareholder's right to requisition a meeting "is only meaningful if it can be exercised in a timely and expeditious manner,"3 and found that directors should only be allowed to rely on the exceptions under section 143(3) of the CBCA if the meetings they have called, or have affixed a record date for, will occur in a "timely and expeditious manner."4 The Court emphasized that section 143(3)(a) is to be interpreted as containing a requirement of reasonable timeliness so that directors may only rely on it if the meeting for which they have fixed a record date is scheduled for a time reasonably soon after the receipt of the requisition. The range of reasonableness will take into account the need for shareholders to possess sufficient information to form a reasoned judgment before they vote on the subject matter of the requisition.

In determining whether Bioniche's November meeting fell within the range of reasonable timeliness, the Court looked to see if the timing of the meeting would prejudice the interest of a requisitioning shareholder. The Court found that on the facts of the matter, determining whether the November meeting fell within the range of reasonable timeliness was a "close call," but ultimately concluded that the Board's actions in rejecting the Second Requisition was a reasonable exercise of its business judgment sufficient to bring it within the exception set out in section 143(3)(a).

Dissidents' ability to call a meeting where the board fails to do so

In a novel addition to the current law in this area, the Court found that the obiter reasoning in Airline Industry Revitalization Co v Air Canada was powerful and persuasive in arguing that shareholders who can garner sufficient support to meet the 5% threshold should be able to call a meeting under section 143(4) of the CBCA, even if the directors have correctly relied on a section 143(3) exception to decline to call the requisitioned meeting.5 The Court noted that while the Business Corporations Act (Ontario) and Business Corporations Act (British Columbia) explicitly limit the ability of shareholders to call a meeting to circumstances where the board refuses to call a meeting without justification, the CBCA does not set any similar limitation. As a result, the Court found that requisitioning shareholders could exercise their right to call a meeting even where the directors were able to use a section 143(3) exception to justify failing to call the requisitioned meeting.

However, on the facts of the case, the Court ultimately granted the declaration sought by Bioniche and held that the Dissident Shareholders could not proceed with the August meeting. This decision turned on a few key points. As neither requisition had set a date or deadline by which the requisitioned meeting should be held, the Dissident Shareholders' complaint that the Board was not acting in a timely fashion and that there was an urgent need for a shareholders' meeting lost its force. Also, the Dissident Shareholders waited a month after the denial of the Second Requisition to invoke their right to call a meeting, resulting in only a two month gap between the proposed shareholders' meeting and the already scheduled November meeting. The evidence given by Bioniche showed that there would be no substantial prejudice to the Dissident Shareholders in waiting to consider the election of directors they proposed until the November meeting. In light of this, and combined with the weak evidence showing an urgent need to hold a meeting in August, the Court found that there was no evidence to justify the significant costs of holding two meetings in such close proximity and determined that the Dissident Shareholders were not entitled to proceed with the August meeting.

Significance of the decision

The Bioniche decision provides some key factors that boards and shareholders of CBCA corporations should keep in mind when determining whether dissident shareholders will have a right to requisition a meeting. The decision confirms that although a board may opt to accept a meeting requisitioned by a beneficial holder, it is not obligated to do so as only registered shareholders are entitled to requisition shareholders' meetings under the CBCA. The decision also confirms that a valid requisition regarding a meeting to elect directors should contain the names and some biographical details of the proposed nominees, and suggests that a requisitioning shareholder may call a meeting pursuant to section 143(4) of the CBCA even if the directors validly relied on a section 143(3) exception to decline to call the requisitioned meeting.

On the facts of this case it is clear that key details, such as setting in a requisition a date or deadline for a meeting that reflects the urgency of the situation, can potentially determine whether a dissident shareholder will be successful or not. The decision also demonstrates the Court's efforts to balance the rights of shareholders against the business judgment of a board: while Courts will try to ensure that the voice of shareholders is not overpowered by a board where it would be unjust, unfair or substantially prejudicial to the shareholders' interests, they are also extremely reluctant to interfere with the business judgment of a board where there is no compelling reason to do so.

1 2013 ONSC 4871.

2 See Greenpeace Foundation of Canada v Inco Ltd, [1984] OJ 274 (HCJ) and Verdun v Toronto-Dominion Bank, [1996] 3 SCR 550.

3 Paulson & Co Inc v Algoma Steel Inc (2006), 76 OR (3d) 191, 14 BLR (4th) 104 (SCJ) at para 41.

4 Ibid.

5 Airline Industry Revitalization Co v Air Canada (1999), 45 OR (3d) 370 (SCJ) at para 48.

The foregoing provides only an overview. Readers are cautioned against making any decisions based on this material alone. Rather, a qualified lawyer should be consulted.

© Copyright 2013 McMillan LLP

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.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
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
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

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 or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq 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 of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions