A fifty per cent holding meets the ownership floor, but only just, and the arrangement then has to show she can develop and direct the enterprise. Where the shareholders agreement gives the other shareholder a veto over ordinary business decisions, the ability to direct becomes a real question rather than a formality.
The floor is met; the control question is still open
Two requirements are being tested at once and they can be pulled apart. The enterprise must be at least half owned by treaty nationals. Hypothetical example: with Océane holding half as a Canadian citizen that condition is satisfied on the day of closing.
Separately, she must be in a position to develop and direct, which ordinarily follows from majority ownership or from operational control established some other way. An equal split with a co-shareholder who is not a treaty national leaves the second point to be answered by the documents rather than by the percentages. Options exist and should be chosen deliberately: a fifty-one per cent holding, a shareholders agreement appointing her as the person responsible for management with defined authority, differently weighted share classes, or a casting vote on operating matters.
What will not work is a structure written for commercial comfort and then described to immigration authorities as something else. The agreement and the description have to be the same document.