Skip to main content

Diigo Home

CanLII - 1998 CanLII 14685 (ON S.C.) - The Diigo Meta page

www.canlii.org/...1998canlii14685.html - Cached - Annotated View

David Scrimshaw's personal annotations on this page

dscrimshaw
Dscrimshaw bookmarked on 2009-11-05 Law oppression corporate Creditor

[37] The creditor respondents have clearly met the criteria of (1) having a legitimate interest in the affairs of the corporation and (2) being analogous to that of a minority shareholder. They also may have met the criterion of having a reasonable expectation that the company’s affairs would be conducted with a view to protecting their interests as judgment creditors.

  • [18]     
             The courts, have, in some cases, found that a
    creditor has standing to assert an oppression action. In all such cases the
    courts invoked their discretionary powers pursuant to s. 245(c) of
    the O.B.C.A. which defines a “complainant” as (other than security holders past
    or present and directors and officers past and present) any other person who, in
    the discretion of the court, is a proper person to make an application under
    this part:
  • [19]     
             However, it has been held that debt actions should
    not be routinely turned into oppression actions: see Royal Trust Corp. of
    Canada v. Hordo     reflex, (1993), 10
    B.L.R. (2d) 86 (Ont. Gen. Div.).
  • While it is true that most of the alleged oppression acts took place before the
    respondents became judgment creditors, that does not necessarily mean that their
    interest as creditors is “remote” as that term is used by Blair J. in Jacobs
    Farms Ltd. v. Jacobs,     [1992] O.J. No. 813 (Gen. Div.).
  • The Ontario Court of Appeal in G.T. Campbell & Associates Ltd. v. Hugh
    Carson Co.     (1979),
    24 O.R. (2d) 758, 7 B.L.R. 84, has held that a person with a claim for
    unliquidated damages should be considered a creditor of a corporation for the
    purposes of the O.B.C.A. where that expanded definition is necessary to ensure
    that an unreasonable or unjust result does not occur.

This link has been bookmarked by 1 people . It was first bookmarked on 05 Nov 2009, by David Scrimshaw.

  • 05 Nov 09
    dscrimshaw
    David Scrimshaw

    [37] The creditor respondents have clearly met the criteria of (1) having a legitimate interest in the affairs of the corporation and (2) being analogous to that of a minority shareholder. They also may have met the criterion of having a reasonable expectation that the company’s affairs would be conducted with a view to protecting their interests as judgment creditors.

    Law oppression corporate Creditor

    • [18]     
                 The courts, have, in some cases, found that a
      creditor has standing to assert an oppression action. In all such cases the
      courts invoked their discretionary powers pursuant to s. 245(c) of
      the O.B.C.A. which defines a “complainant” as (other than security holders past
      or present and directors and officers past and present) any other person who, in
      the discretion of the court, is a proper person to make an application under
      this part:
    • [19]     
                 However, it has been held that debt actions should
      not be routinely turned into oppression actions: see Royal Trust Corp. of
      Canada v. Hordo       reflex, (1993), 10
      B.L.R. (2d) 86 (Ont. Gen. Div.).
    • 2 more annotations...