A drag-along lets a selling majority force the minority to sell on the same terms. A tag-along lets the minority join a sale the majority has negotiated. Both are contract rights, not statutory ones. If they are not in your shareholders' agreement, you do not have them.
Our charges include applicable taxes. Disbursements are extra and billed at cost — itemized upfront, in writing, never hidden.
From $3,388.87 taxes included
A drag-along solves a buyer problem. Most buyers of a private company want 100% of the shares, and will not close for 92%. Without a drag, a single small holder can block the sale or hold it hostage for a premium. With one, once holders of the agreed threshold accept an offer, everyone else is obliged to sell on the same terms. The alternative is restructuring the deal as an asset sale, which usually costs the sellers more in tax.
A tag-along solves the mirror problem. The majority negotiates an exit, gets a control premium, and the minority is left holding shares in a company controlled by a stranger who has no reason to buy them out. A tag-along says that if the majority sells, the minority can require the buyer to take its shares too, on identical terms, usually pro rata to the number being sold.
The statutory backstop is narrow. Section 188 of the Business Corporations Act lets an offeror compulsorily acquire the holdouts, but only after a formal take-over bid accepted within 120 days by holders of at least 90% of the class, excluding shares the offeror already held. That is a public-market mechanism. Private Ontario corporations rely on contract, which is why the shareholders' agreement carries the whole weight.
The trigger. What percentage sets off the drag, measured how, and whose shares count. Founders often want a floor of their own consent on top of the percentage. It is worth saying expressly whether a sale to a party related to the majority can trigger a drag at all — that exclusion is the single best protection a minority holder can get.
What a dragged shareholder can be forced to sign. This is where drafting is either careful or dangerous. A reasonable drag limits the dragged holder to representations about their own title and authority to sell, with liability several and not joint, capped at their share of the proceeds, and survival matching everyone else's. It should expressly exclude a non-competition covenant, a personal indemnity for the business's own liabilities, and any obligation to roll over into buyer equity.
"Same terms" needs a definition. It should mean the same per-share consideration, in the same form, with the same proportion of escrow, holdback and earnout. If the majority takes cash and the minority is offered paper, that is not the same deal. Then the mechanics: notice period, a closing long-stop, and a power of attorney so one holdout cannot stall the share transfer. Say expressly that any right of first refusal is suspended when the drag fires — otherwise the two clauses deadlock.
These are contract rights, and Ontario courts enforce them. Putting them in a unanimous shareholder agreement under section 108 of the OBCA helps, because a person who later acquires shares becomes a party to the agreement — you are not left chasing a transferee who never signed anything. Also check the articles: if the articles restrict share transfers in terms that conflict with the drag, the articles will cause a problem at registration.
The real risk is not the clause failing, it is the clause being abused. A drag exercised to push through a sale to the majority's own affiliate at a suppressed price is a textbook oppression claim under section 248 of the OBCA. The court can rewrite the price, unwind the transfer or order compensation, and the majority's own directors can be personally exposed. Drafting the related-party carve-out at the start avoids that entire fight.
On the enforcement side, damages are a poor remedy — the loss is the value of a sale that did not happen, and that is hard to prove. Practically, you are asking a court for specific performance or an injunction, on a compressed timetable, with a buyer's outside date running. A power of attorney and a deemed-transfer mechanic in the agreement is worth more than any litigation strategy.
It is negotiated, not fixed by law. Common shapes are a simple majority of the shares, a higher supermajority, or a majority plus the consent of a named founder or investor class. What matters more than the number is who it protects: set it where the people who would realistically drive an exit can act, but where a single holder cannot force everyone out on terms they had no say in. Also decide whether the drag is only available above a minimum price.
Only if your shareholders' agreement says so. Many drags are drafted broadly enough — "execute all documents required by the purchaser" — that on their face they could. That is the clause to fix before you sign it, not after. A well-drafted drag limits the dragged holder to title and authority representations, several liability capped at their proceeds, and expressly carves out restrictive covenants and personal indemnities for the business's own liabilities.
That depends entirely on the wording. Some tags trigger on any transfer above a stated size; some only on a change of control; some allow a full tag (sell all your shares) rather than a pro rata tag (sell the same proportion the majority is selling). If your agreement only triggers on a sale of "all" the majority's shares, the majority can sell 90% and defeat it. Read the trigger before you rely on the protection.
Yes, but every shareholder has to agree, and a minority holder who understands what a drag does has no obvious reason to sign one for free. In practice these get added when something else is on the table — a financing round, a new shareholder joining, a family member coming in, or a reorganization. That is the moment to do it. Adding a drag when a buyer is already circling is much harder.
A court will not rewrite a clause because a shareholder now regrets it. It can intervene where the drag is used oppressively — a sale to the majority's own related party, a price manipulated to favour one class, or terms imposed on the minority that the majority did not accept itself. The oppression remedy in section 248 of the OBCA is broad and the court can order almost any remedy it thinks fit, including setting the price.
Open your file tonight — a licensed Ontario lawyer will confirm everything with you by tomorrow.