Newsletters

202

Companies May Hold Remote Meetings, Despite Governing Documents

By press release dated April 27, 2020, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Québec announced that for the duration of the COVID-19 public health emergency, legal persons who must hold meetings of their boards of directors, shareholders (in the case of a corporation) and members (in the case of non-profit organizations) can do so remotely, even if their governing documents require in-person attendance or actually prohibit participation in meetings by technological means. This includes corporations, non-profit legal persons governed by Part III of the Companies Act (Quebec), cooperatives (for both annual and special meetings), partnerships, syndicates of co-owners, professional orders, the council of commissioners of a school board and the governing board of an elementary or high school.

Generally speaking, such technological means must include the use of equipment by the participants which enable all of them to hear each other (e.g., conference call or video-conference) and must permit voting and the recording of the results. Where a secret vote is required, it can be held by any agreed-upon method of communication, failing which it can be held by any method which permits the collection of ballots for subsequent verification and which preserves the secrecy of the votes.

Similar measures have been adopted across Canada in the various provinces and territories. This is however only a temporary solution, and all organizations of every nature who are required to hold meetings should seize this opportunity to update their governing documents (constitution, by-laws, agreement, etc.) to specifically permit meetings held by technological means and to set out the requirements for the meeting to be held and for those “in attendance” to participate.

202

Authors

Sharon G. Druker, Ad. E.

Lawyer, Partner and Head of the Corporate Services Department

Articles in the same category

An Insurer Is Not Required to Uncover What the Insured Was Required to Disclose

In Kayembe-Kabeya v. Industrielle Alliance, assurance et services financiers inc., 2026 QCCS 1714, the Superior Court sets the record straight on the principle of contractual “utmost good faith”. The Facts In September 2019, Ms. Ricady Mede (hereinafter “Mede”) purchased a life insurance policy from Industrielle Alliance (hereinafter the “Insurer”). A few months later, she died of […]

When it’s too late for latent defects…

The Superior Court recently rendered a judgment in Reinert v. Construction Maurice Bilodeau Inc., 2026 QCCS 2276, dealing with timeliness to give notice in cases of latent defects. The Facts In 2013, Ms. Sylvie Reinert and Mr. Denis Leclerc retained Construction Maurice Bilodeau Inc. (“CMB”) for the construction of a residential building on a vacant lot in Lévis. […]

Insurance Math: One Claim, Two Fires, Three Points of Origin, Zero Recovery: When Circumstantial Evidence Speaks Louder Than a Confession

In Chatel v. Desjardins Insurance, 2026 QCCS 712, the Quebec Superior Court reaffirmed a principle of insurance law: direct evidence is not required to establish an intentional fault. Mr. Chatel claimed $532,000 under his homeowner’s insurance policy following two fires that occurred four days apart. The first caused partial damage to his residence, while the second […]

The Quarrelsome Litigant: When the Right to Sue Becomes a Scourge

Access to the courts is a fundamental right, but what happens when a person uses it not to assert legitimate rights, but to harass others or clog the system to excess? This is quarrelsomeness: the tendency to exercise one’s right to litigate in an excessive or unreasonable manner. Far from being a marginal phenomenon, it […]

Before Buying a Product, Read This: The Rules Are Changing on October 5!

On October 5, 2026, the final amendments to the Regulation amending the Regulation respecting the application of the Consumer Protection Act (the “Regulation“) are expected to come into force, completing the implementation of the new “good working order” warranty in the province of Quebec. When this warranty applies, the merchant or manufacturer will be required to repair […]

No Notice of Default, No Termination

In Pavage Wemindji Inc. v. Compagnie de Construction et de Développement crie ltée, the Quebec Superior Court emphasized that a valid notice of default (mise en demeure) is not just a formality—it’s a precondition to exercising remedies like contract termination in many cases under Quebec civil law. The Decision The plaintiff, Pavage Wemindji Inc. (“Wemindji”), […]