Early insights into the 2026 Canadian proxy season

Early data from the proxy season makes one thing clear. Preparation is no longer a best practice. It is a survival strategy.

Key takeaways:

1. Fifty activist campaigns have launched in Canada so far this season. That is up 28% year-on-year, and the number understates what is actually happening on the ground.
2. Activists are more precise, with meeting requisitions, one of the most aggressive tools in an activist's playbook, already hitting record levels. There were 14 filed this season, surpassing last year’s full-season total. Activists are using requisitions to compress timelines and force boards onto the back foot before they can mount a response.

What are activists targeting in Canada?

Board composition and director effectiveness sit at the centre of more than half of all campaigns. M&A activity is another flashpoint and campaigns targeting strategic transactions have already exceeded last year’s full-season count. Elliott Investment Management’s simultaneous moves on Barrick and Lululemon, which are both mid-CEO-transition, are a reminder that leadership succession is one of the most exploitable vulnerabilities a board can have.

A pattern of concentrated, multi-front campaigns is also emerging. Plantro Ltd. has targeted four companies this season alone, including ongoing disputes at Ag Growth and Dye & Durham, while OneMove, has targeted two Canadian issuers as well. In the United States, a similar concentration is evident: Elliott Investment Management, Holdco Asset Management and Irenic Capital Management each launched several campaigns in the first quarter alone. This activity underscores the extent to which a small number of repeat players are pursuing campaigns in parallel.

The message is blunt. Boards that have not conducted a serious vulnerability assessment, are likely behind and at risk.

Shareholders are asking harder questions

With 101 shareholder proposals submitted so far this proxy season in Canada, up 6% year-on-year, there are three clear themes demanding board attention.

1. AI governance is no longer abstract. Last season, shareholders asked boards to think about AI. This season, they want answers. Five of the 101 proposals specifically target how AI risks are assessed and mitigated internally, which is a direct shift from broad ethical frameworks to operational accountability. If your board cannot articulate who owns AI oversight, what controls are in place, and how directors are staying current, expect that gap to attract scrutiny.
2. Retail shareholders are finding their voice. Fourteen proposals by Mouvement d’éducation et de défense des actionnaires (MÉDAC) this season call for enhanced retail participation at AGMs and greater transparency around participation levels. These will not pass; not just yet. But they signal where expectations are heading. Boards that communicate only with institutional holders are increasingly exposed on their blind side.
3. ESG scrutiny is getting sharper, not softer. Proposal volumes may be stabilizing, but the lens has changed. Governance proposals have more than doubled year-on-year, while environmental and social proposals have declined. Investors are no longer counting commitments, they are stress-testing them. Greenwashing scrutiny is real and growing. Vague disclosures and aspirational targets are liabilities, not assets. Every ESG claim needs to be substantiated, governed and defensible.

Four things boards must do now

1. Own your geopolitical risk narrative. Trade disputes, tariffs, and supply chain disruption are bigger board-level risks than the year before and investors expect to see these addressed with specificity. This includes scenario analysis, capital allocation linkage and evidence that directors are challenging management assumptions, not rubber-stamping them. Boilerplate is not going to cut it.
2. Formalize AI governance before someone else forces you to. Boards are fully accountable for establishing AI oversight frameworks, while shareholder expectations are already running ahead of most boards’ current practices. Assign committee accountability, build director expertise and ensure clarity in disclosure.
3. Bulletproof your pay narrative. Any discretionary adjustments to compensation needs airtight rationale, grounded in shareholder experience, not internal logic. If you cannot defend it clearly, do not expect investors to accept it quietly.
4. Stop relying on proxy advisor benchmarks alone.The proxy advisory landscape is fragmenting. Glass Lewis is moving toward customized recommendations starting 2027. Institutional investors like JP Morgan are building their own frameworks. Boards that forecast voting results solely through the proxy advisor lens are operating with incomplete intelligence. Direct shareholder engagement, including conversations without management in the room, is no longer optional. It is how you find out what investors actually think before it shows up in the vote.

The bottom line

The remainder of the 2026 proxy season globally will be defined by higher expectations, not necessarily higher opposition. The boards that navigate it successfully will be those that treat preparation as continuous, not reactive, and that engage shareholders directly, disclose with specificity, and govern with discipline.

Activism north of the border is now precision-driven. Boards should be too.

For a full review of the findings outlined in this article, download Kingsdale Advisors’ Early Insights report here.

For a global view, download Diligent’s 2026 Proxy Season Preview.