Skip to main content

Diigo Home

CanLII - 2003 CanLII 35795 (ON S.C.) - The Diigo Meta page

www.canlii.org/...2003canlii35795.html - Cached - Annotated View

David Scrimshaw's personal annotations on this page

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

The complaint relates to the fact that, regardless of the amount of profit, CIC sold assets otherwise available to satisfy the applicant’s claim to a related company who in turn resold those assets at a profit, was paid, and yet has not yet paid CIC for the supply of such assets in circumstances where payment would provide CIC with the financial ability to honour the debt it has been found to owe to the applicant

  •  “Oppressive” has been
    interpreted as meaning burdensome, harsh or wrongful:  Scottish
    Cooperative Wholesale Society Ltd. v. Meyer
    , [1959] A.C. 324; Burnett v. Tsang reflex, (1985), 29 B.L.R. 196.
  • “Unfairly prejudicial” has been held to mean “acts that are unjustly or
    inequitably detrimental”:  Diligenti v. R.W.M.D. Operations Kelowna
    (1996), 1 B.C.L.R. 36.
  •  “Unfairly disregards” has
    been held to mean “unjustly or without cause, pay no attention to, ignore or
    treat as of no importance the interests of security holders, creditors,
    directors or officers”:  Stech v. Davies reflex, (1987), 53 Alta. L.R. (2d) 373
  •  It appears that the
    progression from “oppressive” to “unfairly prejudicial” to “unfairly disregards”
    involves decreasingly stringent requirements
  • An applicant need not show mala fides on the part of the respondents, as it is
    the effect of their actions, rather than their intent, which is material
  •  Amongst the factors to be
    considered is included the reasonable expectation of a creditor that debtors
    will not engage in conduct after becoming a creditor, and during and after a
    trial, that will hinder satisfaction of a judgment: 
  • Also included in the factors to be considered are the history and nature of the
    corporation, the nature of the relationship between the parties, general
    commercial practice, and detriment to the creditor’s interests where those who
    control a closely held corporation transfer assets and pay shareholder loans
    with the result that the creditor remains unpaid with no likelihood of
    recovery: 
  • Paying dividends or redeeming shares when a corporation is unable to pay its
    liabilities has been held to constitute unfairly prejudicial conduct, and to be
    unfairly disregarding of a creditor’s interests: 
  •  It has been held to
    amount to oppression where the owner in control of a corporation directs its
    affairs so as to divert the corporation’s money to himself and thereby render
    the corporation unable to pay a judgment debt: 
  • Section 241(2) is offended where the director of a corporation takes money out
    of it after service of a statement of claim as the director is then putting his
    interests ahead of those of the creditors and the corporation, and he has been
    held to “unfairly disregard” the creditor’s interest:  Heap Noseworthy
    Ltd. v. Didham
    1996 CanLII 6621 (NL S.C.T.D.), (1996) 38
    C.B.R. (3d) 94; SCI Systems Inc. v. Gornitzki Thompson & Little Co.
    1998 CanLII 17741 (ON S.C.D.C.), (1998), 110
    O.A.C. 160.
  • s. 241 of the CBCA, which in effect legislates that in certain circumstances the
    principals behind a company can be held accountable in circumstances where they
    have directed the corporation’s affairs in such a way as to benefit themselves
    to the detriment of creditors
  • The respondents are not entitled, after the fact, to call upon the applicant to
    share in the risk by denying the applicant repayment of monies it has been
    judicially found to be owed as the result of corporate dealings which stripped
    the debtor company of the ability to pay such monies, by virtue of maneuvers
    designed to remove the assets otherwise available for that purpose to a place of
    benefit to the controlling forces of the corporation in question

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

    The complaint relates to the fact that, regardless of the amount of profit, CIC sold assets otherwise available to satisfy the applicant’s claim to a related company who in turn resold those assets at a profit, was paid, and yet has not yet paid CIC for the supply of such assets in circumstances where payment would provide CIC with the financial ability to honour the debt it has been found to owe to the applicant

    Law corporate oppression Creditor

    •  “Oppressive” has been
      interpreted as meaning burdensome, harsh or wrongful:  Scottish
      Cooperative Wholesale Society Ltd. v. Meyer
      , [1959] A.C. 324; Burnett v. Tsang reflex, (1985), 29 B.L.R. 196.
    • “Unfairly prejudicial” has been held to mean “acts that are unjustly or
      inequitably detrimental”:  Diligenti v. R.W.M.D. Operations Kelowna
      (1996), 1 B.C.L.R. 36.
    • 10 more annotations...