“. unless that person is qualified to do so. According to Sílvio de Salvo Venosa, “legal personality is a projection of the intimate and psychic personality of each person; It is a social projection of the psychic personality with legal consequences.  In addition, the law also confers personality on other entities consisting of groups of persons or assets: these are called legal persons. A natural person (sometimes called a natural person) is a title used to identify an individual person. This is different from a legal entity, which can be an individual or a company. 15. (1) A corporation has the legal capacity and, subject to this Act, the rights, powers and privileges of a natural person. In civil law, a society that possesses the capacity of a natural person has the full enjoyment of his rights, just like a human being. I agree with you. You could have simply included a very specific provision to deal with this problem. It is strange that, in all other cases, corporations are treated as individuals, but in these circumstances the law has been interpreted to distinguish between a natural person and a corporation. I still tend to support the position that directors should be persons, not corporations, simply because I believe that the potential personal liability of directors is much more real when the director is a person and not a corporation. Although the statutes are structured differently, section 124(1) of the BCBCA and paragraph 105(1)(c) of the CBCA require that a director be an “individual.” The CBCA defines a person as a “natural person.” The BCBCA does not contain a definition.
At first glance, this seems to exclude a company. As a rule, a natural person commits a crime, but legal persons can also commit criminal offences. In the United States, animals that are not persons under U.S. law are not allowed to commit crimes.  However. Section 30 of the BCBCA grants companies “the rights, powers and privileges of a person enjoying full legal capacity.” To me, this suggests that a company can identify itself as an individual in order to sit on a board of directors. While the CBCA`s definition of “natural person” appears to be more restrictive, section 15 of the CBCA gives an entity “the rights, powers and privileges of an individual.” Again, this appears to give a company the right to identify itself as a natural person for the purposes of membership on a board of directors. Like another “learned friend.” I agree with you, Dan. However, to add to Piers` point about vagueness, this vagueness is reinforced by some of the Charter`s jurisprudence on the legal interpretation of the term “individual.” Most of the case law (and our manual) shows that the term “individual” does not include businesses. This case law is used to support the argument that the term “individual” in the BCBCA and CBCA refers only to individuals. However, as we have seen, in R/CIP Inc, supra, the Tribunal merely asked “whether the accused undertaking has an interest falling within the right protected by the relevant provision of the Charter” in order to determine whether an undertaking may rely on a provision of the Charter. This seems to undermine the categorical legal principle of interpretation that the term “individual” does not include a body.
A litigant could rely on this test in conjunction with the absence of a specific provision in the BCBCA defining the term “individual” to argue that the term also includes corporations. It probably could not have to do with the CBCA given the definition in subsection 2(1). Inaccuracy breeds imprecision! 15. (1) Subject to this Act, the corporation has the capacity of an individual and the rights, powers and privileges of the natural person. To my knowledge, the list of things that can reasonably be considered an “individual” is exhausted by corporations and individuals. There are therefore in fact only two ways of interpreting paragraph 105(1)(c) of the CBCA. This could be a disqualification: (1) a person who is not an individual, or (2) a person who is not a corporation. Of course, a natural person can be a director. This is satisfied by both common sense and reality. We are therefore left with only one possible interpretation of the provision. This means that legal entities cannot be directors.
The fact that subsection 2(1) of the CBCA explicitly states that an individual is an individual is just the icing on the cake. I agree that the BCBCA is not that easy to interpret, but I think the same argument can be made. The provision disqualifies.” a person, unless that person is qualified to do so” as a director. The problem is that the word “individual” added “who is qualified.” Does this provision exclude all persons who are not natural persons or only persons who are not “qualified” persons? In other words, does a person have to be “an AND qualified person” or simply “qualified”? However, a business or non-governmental organization may take legal action or own property as a legal entity. The addition of the phrase “is an individual”, where it would otherwise be superfluous, suggests that it should have a meaning other than “person”. If it is to have another meaning as a person, that meaning must be “natural person” (from the argument above). Therefore, the law does not allow corporations to be directors. This legal term article is a heel.
You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. In many cases, fundamental human rights are implicitly granted only to natural persons. For example, the Nineteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which states that a person cannot be denied the right to vote on the basis of sex, or section fifteen of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees equal rights, apply only to individuals. Another example of the distinction between natural and legal persons is that a natural person may hold public office, but not a corporation. In case law, a natural person (also a natural person in some Commonwealth countries or a natural person) is a person (in the legal sense, i.e. a person who has his or her own legal personality) who is an individual human being, as opposed to a legal person, which may be a private organisation (i.e. a commercial entity or non-governmental organisation) or a public organisation (i.e. governmental). Historically, in some jurisdictions where slavery existed (subject to a property right), a person was not necessarily a natural person or a person. BCBCA 124 (1) No person shall become a director of a corporation or act as a director of a corporation unless the person is a natural person authorized to do so.
According to Maria Helena Diniz, a natural or natural person is “the human being who is considered a subject of rights and duties”. Every human being has legal personality and is therefore a legal person.  In the first case, the situation would be the same as in the CBCA: persons who are not individuals cannot be directors. Again, this must be interpreted to mean that natural persons cannot be directors or that legal persons cannot be directors. I think you will agree with which of these interpretations is more plausible. The latter case, people must be qualified, does not necessarily exclude companies (unless you think a company cannot be qualified, which is another question). CBCA 105(1) The following persons are excluded from the exercise of the functions of directors of a corporation: (c) a person who is not an individual In order to ensure that a “corporation/corporation” can exercise all its rights, the expression “rights, powers and privileges of an individual” or similar wording must be used. Section 2(1) of the CBCA continues: “Individual means a natural person” You and I know that legislators do not legislate for nothing. In that sense, if the intention was to allow all qualified persons to be directors, then why is the word individual used? The definition could easily read “natural person”. Merriam-Webster.com Legal Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, www.merriam-webster.com/legal/natural%20person. Retrieved 4 October 2022. A scholarly friend of mine argued that it was merely an exercise in legal interpretation to conclude that the authors clearly intended the councils to be composed of flesh and blood people.
In my opinion, with all due respect to Leon Getz, they could have spoken more clearly about it. Both bylaws could have included a paragraph that says, “A corporation may not act as a director,” but where is the fun? As I said, it is a simple matter of legal interpretation.