David Scrimshaw's personal annotations on this page
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 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.
-
David ScrimshawThe 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. - 10 more annotations...
-
Would you like to comment?
Join Diigo for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.