82 total
Franchisee store operators may vote in corporation election if they contribute to its profits.
The court provided further directions regarding a court-ordered election for a not-for-profit corporation.
The issue was whether 18 individuals whose memberships had been suspended or terminated were eligible to vote as 'regular members' if they operated convenience stores as franchisees rather than independent owners.
The court found that the corporation's Articles did not exclude franchisee store operators from regular membership, provided they contributed to the generation of profits for the corporation.
The court ordered that the 18 individuals could vote if they submitted an affidavit confirming their contribution to the corporation's profits.
Court sets election rules and voids member expulsions in not‑for‑profit governance dispute.
A not‑for‑profit corporate governance dispute led to court‑ordered elections for officers and directors of an association.
On a motion for directions, the court clarified the powers of court‑appointed election supervisors, determined the positions to be filled, and resolved several disputes about membership eligibility, voting procedures, and governance rules.
The court held that previous confirmations of the president and vice‑presidents were procedurally invalid due to lack of quorum and improper notice.
Suspensions or terminations of certain members were set aside due to lack of procedural fairness.
The court issued detailed directions governing the conduct of the upcoming elections, including supervision authority, quorum rules, and control over the association’s website during the election process.
Appeal regarding access to information dismissed for the reasons of the Federal Court of Appeal.
The appellant appealed a decision of the Federal Court of Appeal regarding a denial of access to information by the Clerk of the Privy Council.
The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, adopting the reasons of the Federal Court of Appeal, which found the Clerk was justified in denying access.
However, the Court awarded costs to the appellant throughout.