I see a version of this a few times a year. Someone put real money into a friend’s company, or a family business, or a startup that a colleague swore was about to take off. They got a share certificate and a handshake. The company may even be doing fine. But the profits stay inside it, or leave as salary and bonuses to the people who run it, and none of it reaches the person who wrote the cheque. When they ask to be bought out, they hear a number that insults them, or they hear nothing at all.
The reason it feels hopeless is that everyone assumes a shareholder with no agreement has no rights. That is the part that is wrong, and it is wrong in your favour.
A private company is not a bank account you can drain when you like. Shares are not cash, and nobody is obliged to buy them back at a price you name. There is usually no public market, so you cannot simply sell to a stranger. And dividends are discretionary: the directors decide whether to pay them, and if the people running the company would rather leave the money inside it or pay themselves a salary, they can, within limits. Add the missing shareholder agreement, the document that would have set a price, a formula, a way out, and it looks airtight.
It isn’t airtight, because the law fills the gap the agreement would have covered. It just does it after the fact, and on its own terms.
Start here, always, because it is the cheapest and it sets up everything that follows. You approach the company or the majority and propose that they buy your shares at a fair price. The pros are obvious: it is fast, it is private, it keeps the relationship civil, and it costs a fraction of a lawsuit.
The con is that you have no leverage yet, and the other side knows it. Without a shareholder agreement there is no agreed price and no obligation to buy, so an unmotivated majority can simply say no, or offer you a number that assumes you will never do anything about it. A buyout is where almost every one of these stories ends. It is rarely where it starts, because the first offer usually reflects how trapped the majority thinks you are. The rest of this article is really about changing that calculation.
This is the one most people have never heard of, and it is the one that matters. Federal and provincial corporate statutes let a shareholder ask a court for relief when the company has been run in a way that is oppressive, unfairly prejudicial, or that unfairly disregards their interests. The test the Supreme Court set out in BCE v. 1976 Debentureholders turns on your reasonable expectations: not what was written down, but what you were reasonably led to expect when you put your money in.
That is the quiet power of it. You never signed an agreement, but you had expectations, and if the people running the company have set out to squeeze you, funnelling the profits to themselves through salaries and bonuses while paying no dividends, cutting you out of information, watering down your shares, a court can look past the paperwork to what actually happened. And the remedy is wide. A judge can order the majority or the company to buy your shares at a fair value the court sets, order dividends paid, unwind a transaction, or change how the company is governed. It is one of the broadest remedies in Canadian corporate law.
The cost is that it is litigation: expensive, slow, and public, and no outcome is guaranteed. Courts do not step in just because you are unhappy or the investment disappointed you. There has to be conduct that genuinely crossed a line. But its real value is felt long before a courtroom. A credible oppression claim is the thing that turns a majority’s insulting lowball into a serious buyout offer, because now they are weighing your price against the cost and risk of defending how they have run the company.
There is a more drastic cousin to the oppression remedy: asking a court to order the company dissolved on the ground that it is just and equitable to do so. It fits a narrow situation — the shareholders were essentially partners, trust between them has completely broken down, and there is no fair way for one side to carry on without the other.
Wind-up gets the majority’s attention like nothing else, because it threatens the whole enterprise, not just your slice of it. That is also its problem. Courts treat it as a last resort and will usually reach for a buyout instead of killing a functioning business, and if the company is worth more running than sold off in pieces, forcing a wind-up can cost you money too. In practice it is most useful the way a fire alarm is useful: mainly as something you would rather not have to pull, but which everyone can see on the wall.
The other three options are about getting you out or getting you paid. A derivative action is different: it is a claim you bring, with the court’s permission, on behalf of the company itself — typically to sue the directors for a wrong done to the corporation, like diverting its opportunities or its money. Any recovery goes to the company, not to you directly, and you generally need leave of the court to start one.
So it is the right tool for a specific problem: not that you have been personally squeezed, but that the people in control have harmed the company and are hardly going to sue themselves. Often the same facts support both a derivative action and an oppression claim, and a lawyer will look at which fits your real goal. If what you want is out, oppression is usually the sharper instrument. If what you want is to make the company whole, this is the one.
Notice the pattern. The buyout is where you want to end up, and the other three remedies are what get you a fair price when you arrive. A minority shareholder with no agreement and no leverage gets a shrug. A minority shareholder holding a credible oppression claim, advised by someone who has run these files, is a different negotiation entirely. The majority now has a reason to make the problem go away, and making it go away means paying you fairly.
Most of these matters settle. They settle because litigation is miserable for everyone, including the side that is winning, and a business owner staring down a court-ordered valuation of a company they would rather keep private will usually find a number they could not find before. The lawsuit is rarely the goal. The credible ability to bring one is what changes the price.
If you are the person who wrote the cheque and never saw a dollar come back, the worst thing you can do is nothing, because time and silence are exactly what the other side is counting on. The best first step is a quiet one: get your share position and the company’s conduct reviewed by a lawyer, privately, before you say anything to the majority. You will usually come out of that conversation with more room to move than you walked in with. The door you thought was locked mostly wasn’t. Someone just told you it was, and hoped you would believe them.
Twenty minutes, no charge — a straight read on where you stand.
Book a 20-Minute Call