The following excerpt is from National Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers Union of Canada, (CAW-Canada) v. Melnor Manufacturing Ltd., 1989 CanLII 3128 (ON LRB):
11. The respondent's second and main argument was based on the decision in Astgen v. Smith, supra. It was said that that case must be read to establish that any amending formula under a constitution is insufficient to support an amendment which changes the fundamental objects of the association unless unanimous consent is attained. Similarly, if the constitution is silent on the question of merger, it was argued that the only way it can be dealt with is by the unanimous consent of its members. Further, it was said that even a change in the constitution to add the power to merge in the future should be considered a fundamental change requiring unanimous votes. Hence, it was argued that the union could not avoid the requirement of unanimous consent.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.