Ontario Civil


Applicants’ motives in requisitioning meeting were not “clearly” of personal nature

Applicants were members of respondent non-profit corporation. They requisitioned directors of respondent to call meeting of members to vote on reinstatement of suspended provincial section members and removal of named directors. Directors refused, saying that primary purpose of motions submitted in requisition was to enforce personal claim or address personal grievance. Applicants decided to call their own meeting and requested list of members from directors, who did not comply with request. Respondent applied under Canada Not-for-Profit Corporations Act for exemption from requirement to provide requested shareholder list. Director was currently reviewing application but had not issued requested exemption. Applicants applied for order that respondent call meeting of members. Application allowed. Right to call special meeting was substantive one and was not lightly to be interfered with. Applicants’ motives in requisitioning meeting were not “clearly” of personal nature. To contrary, it appeared there were profound policy and direction disagreements of sort that membership was best suited to assess and decide. Respondent had not right under Act to stay of proceeding pending determination of their exemption application. Respondent was ordered to call meeting of members.

Saskatchewan WTF Taekwondo Assn. Inc. v. Taekwondo Canada (May. 5, 2015, Ont. S.C.J., Sean F. Dunphy J., File No. CV-15-526240) 253 A.C.W.S. (3d) 762.

cover image


Subscribers get early and easy access to Law Times.

Law Times Poll

A Law Society of Ontario tribunal has ruled that a lawyer charged with offences related to child pornography should not be subject to an interlocutory suspension. Do you agree with this decision?