No. Ownership of at least fifty percent by the Canadian investor meets the develop-and-direct requirement, provided the agreements give the buyer real control. The consulting arrangement is the part to watch.
Eighty percent on paper must be eighty percent in the operating agreement
Hypothetical example: the seller's lawyer drafts a consulting agreement under which the seller 'continues to manage key accounts and supervise field staff during transition'. That sentence hands operational direction back to the minority holder and contradicts the E-2 claim that the buyer develops and directs. The remedy is to rewrite the consulting role as advisory, with the buyer holding hiring, pricing, banking and contracting authority from closing, and to say so in the shareholder agreement. Twenty percent minority ownership by a U.S. person is fine; the enterprise remains at least fifty percent owned by a treaty national. Also confirm that the buyer will be present and working in the business, not managing it from Saskatchewan, and that the buyer's nationality is Canadian by passport, since permanent residence in Canada does not confer treaty nationality. If the buyer plans to bring in a Canadian partner, keep total treaty-national ownership above half.
Hypothetical example: a climbing-wall inspection business is purchased with cash, tools, and a lease, but the buyer keeps the remaining funds in a personal account until the visa interview. Funds still under the buyer's unrestricted control are not the same as capital irrevocably committed to the enterprise. At intake, list each expenditure, the contract that requires it, and whether the buyer personally bears the loss. Then test the business plan against the requirement that the enterprise be real, active, and not marginal. A receipt, executed lease, and paid supplier invoice settle more than a projection alone. Cases go wrong when a buyer counts personal living costs as investment or leaves a cancellation right that permits withdrawal for reasons other than visa refusal.