Mennillo v. Intramodal inc., 2016 SCC 51 (Commercial law — Corporations — Oppression)
On appeal from a judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal (2014 QCCA 1515), affirming a decision of Poirier J. (2012 QCCS 1640).
In 2004, M and R, two friends, discussed the possibility of creating a road transportation company. M would contribute the money to start up the business while R would bring skills to ensure its success. R had the company incorporated on July 13, 2004, and that same day, the company’s board of directors passed a resolution to accept notices of subscription to securities by R and M and to issue 51 shares to R and 49 shares to M. Both the notices of subscription and the resolution were signed by R alone. Thereafter, R and M rarely complied with the requirements of the Canada Business Corporations Act (“CBCA”) and almost never put anything in writing. They had neither a partnership nor a shareholders’ agreement, and there was no written contract or any other legal formality relating to M’s advances of substantial amounts of money to R.
On May 25, 2005, M sent a letter to the corporation in which he indicated that he was resigning as an officer and director of the company. M asserts that he never intended to stop being a shareholder, but the corporation contends that M also resigned as a shareholder and accordingly transferred his shares to R. Claiming that the corporation and R unduly and wrongfully stripped him of his status as a shareholder, M applied for an oppression remedy pursuant to s. 241 of the CBCA.
The trial judge dismissed M’s oppression claim based on the factual finding that M had undertaken to remain a shareholder only so long as he was willing to guarantee the corporation’s debts and later was no longer willing to do so. A majority of the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
Held (8-1): The appeal should be dismissed.
Per Abella, Cromwell, Karakatsanis, Wagner, Gascon and Brown JJ.:
The trial judge’s factual findings are not reviewable on appeal because no palpable and overriding error is present here. M’s oppression claim must accordingly be approached on the basis of the trial judge’s factual findings to the effect that from May 25, 2005 onwards, M did not want to be a shareholder, did not want to be treated as such and, as a result, transferred his shares to R.
There are two elements of an oppression claim. The claimant must first identify the expectations that he or she claims have been violated and establish that the expectations were reasonably held. Then the claimant must show that those reasonable expectations were violated by conduct falling within the statutory terms, that is, conduct that was oppressive, unfairly prejudicial to or unfairly disregarding of the interests of any security holder.
In the present case, M’s oppression claim is groundless. M could have no reasonable expectation of being treated as a shareholder: he no longer was and expressly demanded not to be so treated. As against the corporation, the most that can be said is that it failed to carry out M’s wishes as a result of not observing certain necessary corporate formalities. But in light of these findings, it cannot be said that the corporation acted oppressively or that it illegally stripped him of his status as a shareholder. What happened is that the corporation failed to make sure that all the legal formalities were complied with before registering the transfer of shares to R. The acts of the corporation which M claims to constitute oppression were in fact taken, albeit imperfectly, in accordance with his express wishes.
The fact that a corporation fails to comply with the requirements of the CBCA does not, on its own, constitute oppression. What may trigger the remedy is conduct that frustrates reasonable expectations, not simply conduct that is contrary to the CBCA. In the present case, the failure to observe the corporate formalities in removing M as a shareholder in accordance with his express wishes to be so removed cannot be characterized as an act unfairly prejudicial to the extent that this omission deprived him of his status as a shareholder. The corporation failed to observe the formalities of carrying out his wish not to be a shareholder. Nor can the failure to properly remove him as a shareholder in accordance with his express wishes make it just and equitable for him to regain his status as a shareholder.
Regarding the issue of whether the share transfer could have been retroactively cancelled, it is not possible to do so by way of simple oral consent. An issuance of shares can be cancelled only if (a) the corporation’s articles are amended or (b) the corporation reaches an agreement to purchase the shares, which requires that the directors pass a resolution, that the shareholder in question gives his or her express consent and that the tests of solvency and liquidity be met. Meeting the requirements with respect to the maintenance of share capital cannot be optional, given that it is the share capital that is the common pledge of the creditors and is the basis for their acceptance of doing business with the corporation.
It is common ground that the shares that were transferred were not endorsed by M. Therefore it is true that the corporation proceeded to register a transfer that did not meet all of the criteria stated in the CBCA. Since this was an important formality required by law, it was to be observed on pain of nullity of the transfer. But there is no doubt about the fact that M knew that this formality was not complied with when the company proceeded to register the transfer in the corporate books, and that he was aware that he had not endorsed his share certificate when the shares were transferred to R as the trial judge found. As he was aware of the situation of which he now complains more than three years prior, his claim in that regard was and is still prescribed. Even if the transfer was subject to nullity, it did not mean that it was inexistent.
Finally, regarding the possibility of a conditional issuance of the shares, the condition at issue was a result of an agreement between M and R that the former would be a shareholder only if he guaranteed the corporation’s debts. This agreement was reached by M and R; the corporation was not a party to this agreement. Accordingly, it does not attract the corporate formalities applicable to a conditional issuance of shares.
Per McLachlin C.J. and Moldaver J.:
It is not necessary to determine whether there was an effective transfer of M’s shares to R. This appeal can be disposed of on the basis that M has failed to show a reasonable expectation that he would not be removed as a shareholder from the corporation’s books given that he asked to be removed as a shareholder. This is confirmed by the fact that subsequently M ceased to conduct himself as an equity shareholder and advanced money as loans. The trial judge’s finding of fact is supported by the evidence. Consequently, the trial judge did not err in denying M’s oppression claim.
Per Côté J. (dissenting):
Two key principles are deeply rooted in Canadian corporate law and cannot simply be disregarded or ignored: the principle that a corporation’s legal personality is distinct from that of its shareholder or shareholders, and the principle or rule of the maintenance of capital. The formalities provided for in corporate legislation are imposed to give effect to these principles, and they are necessary to protect the corporation’s patrimony, the common pledge of its creditors.
These principles cannot be variable. The principle that a corporation has a distinct legal personality and the maintenance of capital principle are just as important in the case of a small company as in that of a large one, if not more so. Although expectations may vary from one shareholder to another in the case of a closely held corporation, this does not diminish the importance of these principles. The same is true of the formalities provided for by law to ensure that they are adhered to.
It follows that the conclusion that shares were issued conditionally in this case or that the agreement between the two shareholders regarding M’s shares was cancelled retroactively, simply by their consenting to its being cancelled, and that this cancellation had some effect on the corporation even though the necessary formalities were not observed, jeopardizes important pillars of Canadian corporate law.
Along the same lines, the fact that one shareholder claims he and his fellow shareholder entered into an agreement for the transfer of shares does not relieve the corporation of its legal duty to make the necessary inquiries before passing a resolution approving that transfer of shares and registering the transfer in its registers. The CBCA imposes some very strict requirements to be met before a transfer of shares is registered, including that the security be endorsed and that the transfer be rightful. The corporation’s failure to make such inquiries in this case was in itself a form of oppression.
M did not, by expressing an intention to withdraw from the corporation as a shareholder, extinguish any reasonable expectations he may have had as regards his remaining on the company’s books as a shareholder. To conclude the opposite would amount to saying that the mere expression of an intention to withdraw from a corporation as a shareholder would also extinguish the reasonable expectation that the corporation in question will act in accordance with the law and with its articles and bylaws and will make the necessary inquiries before depriving a person of his or her shareholder status, and would thereby defeat the oppression remedy. However, the CBCA itself does not limit access to the oppression remedy in such a manner and, what is more, shareholders are entitled to expect a corporation to act in accordance with its articles and bylaws and, more generally, with the law. These are, so to speak, presumed expectations.
The question of reasonable expectations is of greater relevance to the determination of a shareholder’s rights that are not specifically provided for in the legislation and in the corporation’s articles and bylaws. Where, as in this case, a corporation is alleged to have acted unlawfully, the focus of the analysis is not so much on the question of reasonable expectations as on that of whether the corporation’s conduct was in fact unlawful and, therefore, oppressive. Mere irregularities that are not oppressive or unfairly prejudicial will not be sufficient to justify granting the remedy to the complainant. On the other hand, a failure to comply with a mandatory legislative provision or with the requirements set out in the corporation’s articles and bylaws that relate to the very recognition of shareholder status may justify granting the oppression remedy.
In this case, several aspects of the corporation’s conduct are problematic. The evidence shows that the share certificate in question was not endorsed. It also shows that the corporation made no inquiries before passing the resolution to transfer M’s shares, and that the resolution was passed retroactively and was signed by a single shareholder (namely the majority shareholder). The corporation’s conduct in this regard, which violated express provisions of the legislation and of its own articles and bylaws, was prejudicial to M: that conduct unlawfully stripped him of his status as a shareholder. It is difficult to imagine how a business corporation could act more oppressively toward a shareholder than by depriving him or her of that status.
The conduct of a corporation that approves a transfer of shares without making any inquiries and that confuses its interests with those of its majority shareholder, as if it were a mere puppet, is not less oppressive simply because another shareholder at some point expressed an intention to withdraw from the corporation without there being any agreement on the terms of such a withdrawal.
Furthermore, the trial judge did not find that the corporation’s shareholders had agreed on a transfer of shares. The interpretation to the effect that he did so find denotes a fragmented reading of the trial judge’s reasons and distorts his conclusions. The trial judge instead concluded that, given that M’s shares had been issued on condition that he guarantee the corporation’s debts, the intention he expressed of withdrawing from the corporation was sufficient for him to be stripped of his status as a shareholder. It is inaccurate to say that the trial judge’s finding that the shares had been transferred was independent of their having been issued conditionally.
The parties characterized the agreement that was alleged to have been entered into by the corporation’s shareholders in several different ways, at times as a conditional issuance of shares, at times as a retroactive cancellation and at times as a contract of sale or a contract of gift. This reflects a more fundamental problem, namely that, without some speculation, no intention in this regard can be found in the evidence. Indeed, the difficulty the courts below had in characterizing the alleged agreement resulted from the fact that there was no evidence of the juridical operation contemplated by the corporation’s shareholders on May 25, 2005 that allegedly resulted in the transfer of M’s shares.
Moreover, it is impossible to find, as a matter of law, that M transferred his shares on May 25, 2005. Whatever conclusion might be reached about the credibility of the witnesses in this regard, the intention expressed by M of withdrawing from the corporation had no effect on his rights as a shareholder. In this case, the intention expressed by M was at most an invitation to contract.
The analysis that is required in the circumstances cannot disregard the interplay between Quebec civil law and the CBCA. It is contrary to basic principles of Quebec civil law to argue that the intention expressed by M in this case resulted in an agreement of wills even though there was no agreement on the juridical operation being contemplated. To conclude that the expression of such an intention bars M’s claim for oppression — thereby approving after the fact the transfer registered by the corporation in its registers — is contrary to the law, to fairness and to common sense.
In addition to having no basis in law, the finding that M had expressed his intention of withdrawing as a shareholder and had transferred his shares in May 2005 is not supported by the evidence and is thus based on palpable and overriding errors. The trial judge erred in rejecting M’s testimony in this regard, since he did so on the basis of an unreasonable interpretation of several pieces of evidence in the record. At most, the evidence shows that M expressed an intention to divest himself of his shares, but no agreement was reached on how he would dispose of them.
Finally, the prescription period applicable to a claim under s. 241 of the CBCA will depend on the basis for the claim. Where — as in this case — the complainant has been acknowledged to be a shareholder at some point and is claiming to have been unlawfully stripped of shareholder status by the corporation, the claim is therefore imprescriptible.
Reasons for judgment by Cromwell J. (Abella, Karakatsanis, Wagner, Gascon and Brown JJ. concurring)
Concurring reasons by McLachlin C.J. (Moldaver J. concurring)
Dissenting reasons by Côté J.
Neutral Citation: 2016 SCC 51
Docket Number: 36124