The shareholder agreement was supposed to prevent the fight. Instead, it either does not exist, says nothing about valuation, or contains a formula that produces an absurd result. Now someone wants out — or someone is being pushed out — and nobody agreed on how to determine what the shares are worth. This is the most expensive gap in Canadian private business.
Shareholder valuation disputes in private Canadian businesses almost always involve one of three situations:
| Scenario | What Happened | Why It Is a Problem |
|---|---|---|
| No agreement | The shareholders never signed a shareholder agreement. They started the business on a handshake, or incorporated without legal advice, or assumed they would never need one. | There is no exit framework, no valuation methodology, no deadlock resolution, no agreed standard of value. The court must supply everything the parties failed to agree on — after the relationship has already broken down. |
| Silent agreement | A shareholder agreement exists but says nothing about how shares will be valued when a triggering event occurs. It may address voting rights, management roles, and non-compete provisions but omit the valuation mechanism entirely. | The agreement creates a framework for operating together but no framework for separating. The triggering event activates a buy-sell obligation with no agreed price or method for determining one. |
| Broken formula | The agreement contains a valuation formula — typically a multiple of earnings, revenue, or book value — that was drafted years ago and no longer produces a reasonable result. Or the formula contains undefined terms that the parties now interpret differently. | A formula drafted in 2005 using “5 times average earnings” may have been reasonable when the business earned $300,000. It may produce an absurd result when the business now earns $2 million or has dropped to $50,000. The formula was designed to prevent disputes. It is now causing one. |
All three scenarios lead to the same place: a valuation dispute where the price of the shares is determined by someone other than the shareholders — typically a court, an arbitrator, or a valuator appointed by one of those authorities. The shareholders have lost control of the process they should have defined when they were still cooperating.
When no shareholder agreement exists, the relationship is governed entirely by the applicable corporate statute — the Canada Business Corporations Act (CBCA) for federally incorporated companies, or the equivalent provincial act (Ontario Business Corporations Act, BC Business Corporations Act, Alberta Business Corporations Act, and so on). These statutes provide the basic corporate framework: majority shareholders elect the board, the board manages the business, and whoever controls the board controls the company.
The statutes do not provide a valuation mechanism. They do not specify how shares should be priced when a shareholder wants out or when a dispute arises. They provide remedies — oppression remedy, derivative action, just and equitable winding-up — but the remedy triggers a valuation that nobody agreed to, using a standard the court selects, performed by a valuator the court accepts, at a cost neither party anticipated.
The practical consequences are severe. Disputes escalate faster because there is no agreed process for resolving them. Outcomes are less predictable because the court exercises broad discretion. Costs are higher because every aspect of the valuation is contested. And the relationship, already strained, becomes adversarial in a way that frequently destroys whatever value the business had.
A shareholder agreement that addresses governance, voting, roles, non-compete, and confidentiality but omits the valuation mechanism is like a fire escape with no stairs. The structure exists. The critical component is missing.
The agreement may say that upon death, disability, retirement, or termination, the remaining shareholders “shall purchase” the departing shareholder’s shares. It may even specify that the purchase will occur within 90 days. But if it does not say how the price will be determined, the obligation is triggered without a mechanism for fulfilling it.
Common gaps in otherwise well-drafted agreements:
| What the Agreement Says | What Is Missing |
|---|---|
| “Shares shall be purchased at market value.” | “Market value” is not a defined standard in Canadian valuation practice. Does it mean fair market value (with potential minority discounts)? Fair value (without discounts)? Who determines it? Using what methodology? |
| “The price shall be determined by the company’s accountant.” | The company’s accountant may not be a business valuator. They may use book value because that is what they know. Book value excludes all goodwill and intangible assets — potentially 60% to 92% of the business’s actual value according to the Ocean Tomo 2025 study. |
| “An independent valuator shall be retained.” | No standard of value specified. No methodology specified. No process for selecting the valuator if the parties disagree. No mechanism for challenging the valuation. No deadline for completion. |
| “The parties shall agree on a price.” | If the parties could agree, they would not be in dispute. This clause is a circular dead end that returns the parties to exactly where they started. |
Formula-based valuation clauses are the most common mechanism in Canadian shareholder agreements. They are also the most common source of valuation disputes. The formula was drafted when the shareholders were cooperating, typically by a lawyer who included it as a standard clause. It was designed to be simple, easy to implement, and to avoid the cost of a formal valuation. It achieves none of these objectives when the triggering event actually occurs.
A typical formula: “The company shall be valued at 5 times the average pre-tax income for the preceding three fiscal years.”
This formula contains at least six problems that become apparent only when someone tries to apply it:
1. “Pre-tax income” is undefined. Does it mean net income before tax as reported on the financial statements? EBITDA? Earnings before owner compensation adjustments? The financial statements may show $200,000 in pre-tax income, but normalized earnings — adjusted for above-market owner compensation, personal expenses through the business, and non-recurring items — may be $400,000 or $100,000. The formula does not address normalization, which is the most consequential adjustment in private business valuation.
2. The multiple is static. A 5x multiple may have been reasonable in 2005 for a business with moderate growth and moderate risk. In 2026, the business may have doubled in size (lower risk, potentially higher multiple) or may be in decline (higher risk, potentially lower multiple). The multiple was frozen at the moment the agreement was signed. The business was not.
3. The formula is backward-looking. It uses historical results to determine value. Value is forward-looking — it represents the present value of future economic benefits. A business that earned $500,000 last year but just lost its largest client is not worth 5 times $500,000. A business that earned $300,000 but just signed a contract that will double revenue is worth more than 5 times $300,000.
4. The formula ignores intangible assets. It applies a multiple to an earnings number without any analysis of what creates those earnings: client relationships, brand value, workforce depth, owner dependency, operational systems. Two businesses with identical earnings can have dramatically different values depending on the composition and transferability of their intangible assets.
5. The formula ignores the distinction between personal and commercial goodwill. If the departing shareholder is the primary client relationship holder, their departure will reduce the business’s earnings. The formula values the business as if those earnings will continue unchanged — which they may not, because the personal goodwill leaves with the person.
6. The formula does not address anomalous years. If the three-year averaging period includes a pandemic year, a year with a major non-recurring expense, or a year with an extraordinary contract, the average is distorted. A formal valuation would normalize for these anomalies. The formula cannot.
| Formula Type | How It Works | Why It Fails |
|---|---|---|
| Multiple of earnings | Value = earnings × fixed multiple (e.g., 5x pre-tax income) | Undefined “earnings,” static multiple, no normalization, no intangible asset analysis, backward-looking. COVID example: travel agency formula using 2019 earnings and a multiple agreed in 2005 — produces fiction, not value. |
| Multiple of revenue | Value = revenue × fixed percentage (e.g., 1.5x annual revenue) | Revenue says nothing about profitability. A business with $2 million revenue and $500,000 profit is not worth the same as one with $2 million revenue and $50,000 profit. Revenue multiples ignore margins, risk, and sustainability entirely. |
| Book value | Value = total assets minus total liabilities per the balance sheet | Excludes all internally generated intangible assets. The Ocean Tomo 2025 study found intangible assets represent 92% of S&P 500 market value. For private businesses, the proportion varies but the direction is the same: book value captures a fraction of enterprise value for any business with goodwill, client relationships, or brand recognition. |
| Fixed price (updated annually) | Shareholders agree on a price each year | Requires annual consensus — which rarely happens. The price becomes stale within months of being set. If the shareholders cannot agree on the annual price, the clause defaults to the last agreed price, which may be years out of date. |
When the agreement is silent, broken, or absent, the court must determine everything the shareholders failed to agree on:
| Decision | What the Court Must Determine |
|---|---|
| Standard of value | Fair market value or fair value? The difference for a minority interest can be 30% to 40%. The court selects the standard based on the legal context — oppression remedy typically triggers fair value; other contexts may use fair market value. |
| Whether discounts apply | Minority discount? Marketability discount? In oppression cases, courts typically exclude discounts. In other contexts, they may apply. The departing shareholder’s interest may be worth $200,000 at fair market value with discounts, or $320,000 at fair value without them. |
| Valuation date | Date of the triggering event? Date of the court order? Last fiscal year end? The valuation date can materially affect the result if the business’s value changed between the triggering event and the hearing. |
| Methodology | Income approach? Asset approach? Market approach? Which inputs? What capitalization rate? How to handle normalization? Each party’s expert will apply the methodology that produces the result favouring their client. |
| Who performs the valuation | Each party hires their own expert. The court may also appoint an independent valuator. The experts may reach different conclusions. The court must weigh the competing evidence and determine which valuation is more credible. |
| Treatment of personal goodwill | Does the departing shareholder’s personal goodwill — client relationships, reputation, skills that will leave with them — get included or excluded? The answer affects whether the remaining shareholders pay for value that will walk out the door. |
Each of these decisions could have been made by the shareholders in a well-drafted agreement, when they were cooperating and negotiating in good faith. Instead, each decision is now made by a court, after adversarial proceedings, based on competing expert evidence, at a cost that frequently exceeds the value of the interest being disputed.
The single most consequential decision in any shareholder valuation is the standard of value. The same 20% minority interest in the same business can produce materially different results:
| Standard | Discounts Applied? | Example Value (20% Interest) | When Typically Used |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fair market value (with discounts) | Minority discount + marketability discount | $200,000 | Tax transactions, arm’s-length sales, CRA purposes |
| Fair value (no discounts) | No minority discount, no marketability discount | $320,000 | Oppression remedy, dissent rights, court-ordered buy-outs |
| En bloc value (pro-rata) | No discounts; proportionate share of total enterprise value | $340,000 | Some shareholder agreements that specify en bloc |
A shareholder agreement that specifies the standard of value eliminates this $120,000 to $140,000 swing. An agreement that is silent on the standard leaves it to the court — and the court’s choice depends on the legal context, the remedy sought, and the specific facts. The departing shareholder wants fair value. The remaining shareholders want fair market value with discounts. The difference is not a rounding error. It is a material component of the outcome.
| Scenario | Typical Cost Range | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Agreement with clear valuation clause | $3,500 – $15,000 for the valuation; $5,000 – $25,000 in legal fees | Methodology agreed. Standard agreed. Dispute is narrowed to application. |
| Agreement with broken formula | $10,000 – $30,000 for competing valuations; $25,000 – $100,000+ in legal fees | Both sides hire experts to argue their interpretation. Formula ambiguity creates litigation over what the agreement means. |
| No agreement or silent agreement | $15,000 – $50,000+ for competing valuations; $50,000 – $500,000+ in legal fees | Every aspect contested: standard, methodology, inputs, discounts, valuation date, expert selection. Full litigation or extended arbitration. May take years. |
The cost of a well-drafted shareholder agreement with a proper valuation clause: $3,000 to $10,000 in legal fees at the time of incorporation. The cost of not having one: often 10 to 50 times that amount when the triggering event occurs. And the triggering event always occurs eventually — through death, disability, retirement, disagreement, divorce, or simply the passage of time.
The shotgun clause (also called a buy-sell clause or Russian roulette clause) is a common mechanism intended to produce a fair price through self-interest: Shareholder A offers to buy Shareholder B’s shares at a specified price. B must either sell at that price or buy A’s shares at the same price. The theory is that A will set a fair price because they do not know which side of the transaction they will end up on.
The theory breaks down when the shareholders have unequal resources. A shareholder with access to capital can trigger the shotgun at a low price, knowing the other shareholder cannot afford to buy at any price and will be forced to sell. A shareholder with inside knowledge of the business’s future prospects can time the trigger to their advantage. A shareholder with a larger percentage can use the shotgun to acquire the smaller interest at a price that reflects only the smaller shareholder’s lack of alternatives.
The shotgun clause also produces a price without a valuation. Neither party has a formal analysis of what the business is actually worth. The price is set by negotiation leverage, not by fair market value. One party may overpay. The other may be undersold. Neither knows, because nobody performed the analysis.
A business valuation obtained before a shotgun is triggered — or before responding to a trigger — provides the information needed to make an informed decision. Without it, you are negotiating blind.
If you are drafting a shareholder agreement, or reviewing an existing one, the valuation clause should address each of these elements:
| Element | What to Specify and Why |
|---|---|
| Standard of value | Fair market value, fair value, or en bloc value? This single decision can change the result by 30% to 40% for a minority interest. Be explicit. Vague terms like “market value” invite dispute. |
| Minority and marketability discounts | Will discounts apply? In most shareholder agreements, the parties intend that a departing shareholder receives their proportionate share without discount — but unless the agreement says so explicitly, a valuator applying fair market value may apply discounts as a default. |
| Valuation method | Formal valuation by an independent valuator is the most defensible approach. Avoid formulas unless you have tested them under both favourable and unfavourable business conditions and are confident the formula produces a reasonable result in all scenarios. |
| Valuator selection | How will the valuator be selected? Options include a named firm, each party selects their own valuator and a third is appointed if they disagree, or a specific professional body provides a list. Avoid “the company’s accountant” — they may lack valuation expertise and may not be independent. |
| Valuation date | Date of triggering event, last fiscal year end, or date of the valuation report? The date matters because business value changes over time. A gap between triggering event and valuation date can produce an unfair result if the business has changed materially in the interim. |
| Scope of the valuation | Should the valuator conduct an on-site inspection? Should intangible assets be identified individually? Should the distinction between personal and commercial goodwill be addressed? Specifying the scope ensures the valuation provides the information needed for a fair outcome. |
| Normalization | Should earnings be normalized for above-market owner compensation, personal expenses, non-recurring items? A formal valuation includes normalization as standard practice. A formula does not. |
| Funding | Who pays for the valuation? Both parties equally? The company? The acquiring shareholder? Address this in advance to prevent disputes over cost-sharing. |
| Dispute resolution | If the parties disagree with the valuation, what happens? Arbitration? Mediation? A third independent valuator? Without a dispute resolution mechanism, the disagreement goes to court — which is what the agreement was supposed to prevent. |
| Personal goodwill treatment | Is personal goodwill included or excluded? If a departing shareholder’s personal relationships and reputation are a significant portion of the business’s value, should the remaining shareholders pay for value that leaves with the person? This is the most commonly overlooked element and one of the most consequential. |
If you have no agreement: Obtain an independent business valuation before you begin negotiating or before you file an oppression claim. The valuation gives you a factual basis for the value of your interest, identifies the intangible assets at stake, and provides the evidence a court or arbitrator will need. Without it, you are arguing about price without knowing what the business is worth.
If your agreement is silent on valuation: The agreement creates the obligation but not the method. Propose to the other shareholders that an independent valuator be retained by consent. If they refuse, you have evidence that the agreement is insufficient and that a court-ordered valuation is necessary. Either way, get your own valuation to understand your position.
If the formula produces an unreasonable result: You may have grounds to argue that the formula does not reflect fair market value and should be set aside or supplemented by a formal valuation. This argument is stronger when supported by an independent valuation that demonstrates the gap between the formula result and the actual value. Courts have recognized that formulas can become outdated and unreasonable — but you need evidence to prove it.
If a shotgun has been triggered or is about to be: Get a valuation immediately. The shotgun imposes a deadline. The valuation tells you whether to accept the offer, reverse it, or negotiate. Without the valuation, you are making a decision worth hundreds of thousands of dollars based on intuition rather than evidence.
In every scenario, the on-site inspection matters. The 25 Factors Affecting Business Valuation and the 5 Senses Inspection Report produce specific findings about intangible assets, owner dependency, workforce depth, and risk factors that financial statements do not capture. In a shareholder dispute, where one party may be trying to suppress the value (to buy cheaply) or inflate the value (to sell expensively), the on-site evidence is what separates a credible valuation from a calculation exercise.
Yes. Shareholders can agree to retain a joint valuator at any time, even after proceedings have commenced. This is often less expensive than each party retaining their own expert. The challenge is achieving agreement once trust has broken down. A mediator or the court can sometimes facilitate this agreement as a procedural step, even if the parties cannot agree on substance.
Only for a business with no goodwill — essentially a holding company or a business that generates returns only sufficient to justify its tangible asset base. For any operating business with client relationships, brand recognition, trained workforce, or operational systems, book value excludes the intangible assets that constitute the majority of enterprise value. Using book value for an operating business buy-out means the departing shareholder receives a fraction of what their interest is actually worth.
It depends on the accountant. A CPA with business valuation expertise may produce a defensible result. A CPA without valuation experience may default to book value or a simple multiple because that is what they know. The accountant may also lack independence if they have a closer relationship with one shareholder than the other. If the clause says “the company’s accountant,” consider whether that person has the expertise, the methodology, and the independence to produce a valuation that both parties will accept.
A court can order production of financial documents, compel cooperation with a valuation process, and draw adverse inferences from a party’s refusal to cooperate. Refusal to participate in the valuation does not prevent it from proceeding — it may simply result in a valuation that relies on available information, which may not favour the non-cooperating party.
If the parties cooperate: the valuation takes 1 to 4 weeks; negotiation may add another 1 to 3 months. If the parties litigate: proceedings can take 1 to 3 years through trial, with expert reports, cross-examination, and judicial determination. The valuation itself is not the bottleneck — the legal process is. Every month of litigation erodes business value, increases costs, and reduces the amount available for distribution.
Both at the same time, if possible. Your lawyer needs the valuation to advise you on your legal position and the likely range of outcomes. The valuator needs to understand the legal context — what standard of value applies, what discounts are at issue, what the triggering event is — to produce a valuation that is relevant to the proceeding. The lawyer and valuator working together from the outset produces the strongest result.
Contact Eric Jordan, CPPA — Expert Witness (Canada)
Toll-free & available 24/7 · Canada-wide
© Eric Jordan — International Business Valuation Specialist | Expert Witness (Canada)
PIN.ca — Business Valuation Canada