Sentences with phrase «oppression remedy»

The Supreme Court of Canada has clarified and confirmed the principles of oppression remedy in a Quebec case that pitted a onetime company president against current directors after the former saw the proportion and value of his corporate shares reduced.

Where the lack of profitability of an investment in property relates to mismanagement of the property, investors may have grounds to seek oppression remedies under the Condominium Act, if applicable, or the relevant business corporation statutes, which can include statutory urgent injunctive relief or a court - appointed manager to oversee the management of the property.

We have acted frequently in respect of oppression remedy actions both under the Ontario and Canada Business Corporations Act, as well as under the Canada Not - for - Profit Corporations Act.

(We have blogged in the past on oppression remedies available to owners).

Raman practices in the areas of civil litigation including estate, commercial, real estate, debtor & creditor matters, business and shareholder disputes including oppression remedies, corporate governance disputes in not - for - profit corporations, and other areas in litigation.

I have represented clients in a variety of corporate and commercial litigation disputes, including contract disputes, shareholder disputes, oppression remedy matters, director and officer liability, complex commercial disputes, fraud recovery (including complex and organized schemes), construction liens, tendering law, and bankruptcy matters.

While the corporate oppression remedy is a broad remedy that can provide relief to a wide range of shareholders and certain other stakeholders harmed when a corporation is run contrary to their reasonable expectations, it will not provide relief to arm's length contracting parties who later find that their contract does not give them the protection they want.

«If it does, voting shareholders may properly claim that their interests have been unfairly disregarded or prejudiced under what is known as the «oppression remedy.»

We can assist you in defending or launching a legal proceeding for an oppression remedy under the Ontario Business Corporations Act («OBCA»).

Andrew Ottaway on Ontario Court Identifying New Presumptive Connecting Factors in Establish Jurisdiction Andrew blogs on Arend v Boehm, where the court found it had jurisdiction in an oppression remedy application based on the corporation's domicile, found to be a presumptive connecting factor.

Mennillo later asserted that he was still a shareholder, and commenced a claim based on the oppression remedy.

Prior to joining Theall Group LLP, Shaun summered and articled at the Toronto office of a prominent national law firm, gaining commercial litigation experience in a wide range of disputes involving fraud, breach of fiduciary duties, employment law, and the oppression remedy.

The Plaintiff filed an application for an oppression remedy under s. 241 of the CBCA.

There's a wealth of interesting and essential material here: a restatement of the directors» fiduciary duty to the corporation, and the extent to which consideration of other stakeholders» interests may enter into that duty; the «business judgment» rule; the obligation of a court in approving an arrangement under s. 192 of the Canada Business Corporations Act and the test to be used; and the nature of the s. 241 oppression remedy and the interests protected.

[172] There is no preferable procedure or meaningful alternative to the Superior Court adjudicating the Class Members claims» for negligence, conspiracy, inducing breach of contract, and for an oppression remedy.

One commentator describes the oppression remedy as «the broadest, most comprehensive and most open - ended shareholder remedy in the common law world»: S. M. Beck, «Minority Shareholders» Rights in the 1980s», in Corporate Law in the 80s (1982), 311, at p. 312.

«I think the [Supreme] court reaffirmed the idea that... the oppression remedy is a broad remedy, [meant to be] applied flexibly by a trial judge, taking into account the particular circumstances of any case,» Douglas Mitchell of Irving Mitchell Kalichman LLP in Montreal and lead counsel for the respondent, told Legal Feeds.

In dismissing the appeal from corporate directors in Andrus Wilson v. Ramzi Mahmoud Alharayeri, the Supreme Court recognized a near -20-year-old Ontario appellate court decision as good law, and upheld the broad wording of the oppression remedy in the Canada Business Corporations Act.

The oppression remedy of s. 241 (2)(c) of the CBCA and the similar provisions of provincial legislation regarding corporations grant the broadest rights to creditors of any common law jurisdiction: see D. Thomson, «Directors, Creditors and Insolvency: A Fiduciary Duty or a Duty Not to Oppress?»

Further Master Wacowich said a «Court has broad powers to determine that an applicant is a proper person to apply for the oppression remedy.

This argument failed as section 135 of the Condominium Act requires that an application seeking an oppression remedy must be made in the Superior Court of Justice.

Under the legislation a creditor may utilize the oppression remedy only if the court exercises its discretion to find that the creditor is a «proper person'to make an application under the oppression remedy (ABCA, s 239).

I question whether this means the class of stakeholders bringing claims under the oppression remedy will expand?

I note the work of Igor Ellyn who suggests that the oppression remedy «allows any type of corporate activity to be the subject of scrutiny, and makes the remedy available to a broad class of individuals.»

However, there will need to be further case law on point to determine whether the oppression remedy may become a tool for corporate social responsibility to gain legal teeth.

The oppression remedy is a statutory right available under section 242 of the Alberta Business Corporation Act, RSA 2000, c B - 9 [ABCA] and other corporate statutes in Canada.

PDF version: The Expanding use of the Oppression Remedy may give legal teeth to Corporate Social Responsibility

Whether a complainant could successfully bring forward a corporate social responsibility claim through an oppression remedy is speculative.

I suggest it is tenable for socially active shareholders to enforce environmental objectives that have been pledged by corporations using the oppression remedy.

Master Wacowich gave wide meaning to the term «creditor» in relation to the oppression remedy.

Nevertheless, the Court held that the applicants were creditors for the purposes of the oppression remedy.

In the common vernacular of corporate law, however, the «oppression remedy» is applied to 3 forms of mistreatment of shareholders.

The focus of this article is the oppression remedy as it relates to shareholder rights in corporations, particularly closely - held private ones.

The oppression remedy requires a personal claim.

One such remedy is the oppression remedy - the «super remedy» of business litigation.

As this case illustrates, a stakeholder will have a difficult time taking advantage of mistakes and non-compliance to gain a benefit with respect to the oppression remedy.

The Supreme Court of Canada revisited the oppression remedy in the recent Supreme Court case of Mennillo v Intramodal Inc., 2016 SCC 51.

He claimed that he was unduly and wrongful removed as a shareholder and brought an oppression remedy claim.

claims for shareholders» remedies against the company and / or other shareholders, such as the oppression remedy and derivative actions;

See «A Brief Overview of the Oppression Remedy» (April 2017) and «Director Liability in Oppression Actions» (August 2017).

To bring an oppression remedy, an applicant must meet a two - part test.

In the recent past, I wrote about the oppression remedy.

The Oppression Remedy is a powerful for shareholders.

Typically, employees have not been thought to be «creditors» for the purposes of the oppression remedy.

J.A. confirmed that the court has broad discretion to fashion a remedy that «is fit» under the oppression remedy section.

[12] The assertion that Mr. Dewji has personal liability is founded in the oppression remedy provisions of the Ontario Business Corporations Act (the «OBCA»), R.S.O. 1990, c. B. 16, specifically, s. 248.

The oppression remedy is an equitable remedy that seeks to ensure fairness but it avoids retribution.

Speaking more broadly with respect to the oppression remedy, the Quebec Superior Court in the case of Burnett v. AXXA Realties, 2004 CanLII 39752 (QC CS) said the following: