Shareholder disputes are an unfortunate reality in commercial enterprises. Disagreements can arise regarding the company’s direction, financial decisions, or the value of individual shareholdings. When such conflicts escalate, shareholders may seek legal recourse. One crucial tool available in Ontario and Canada is the “oppression remedy,” enshrined in both the Ontario Business Corporations Act (OBCA) and the Canada Business Corporations Act (CBCA). Understanding the scope and limitations of this remedy is vital for shareholders and businesses alike.
A recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision, Kong v. Au, provides valuable insight into how the courts approach applications for the oppression remedy, particularly in the context of shareholder buyouts and allegations of deficient financial records. While this analysis focuses on the specifics of Kong, the principles discussed have broader implications for commercial litigation involving shareholder disputes.
The oppression remedy is a statutory mechanism designed to protect the interests of a wide range of stakeholders in a corporation, including shareholders, officers, directors, and even creditors. It allows a court to intervene when the conduct of a corporation or its directors is unfairly prejudicial to, disregards the interests of, or unfairly prejudices the rights of any of these stakeholders.
The key to understanding the oppression remedy lies in the concept of “unfair prejudice.” This goes beyond mere disagreement or dissatisfaction. It requires conduct that is demonstrably unfair, inequitable, or abuses the power held within the corporation. The remedy is intended to provide a flexible and equitable solution in situations where the actions of those in control of a corporation unfairly affect others with a stake in its well-being.
Kong v. Au involved an appeal by a shareholder who sought an oppression remedy against the respondents (the appellant’s partner and their corporation). The appellant’s application in the Superior Court of Justice was dismissed, and he subsequently appealed that decision to the Ontario Court of Appeal.
The appellant’s primary argument on appeal centred on his contention that the application judge erred in downplaying his concerns regarding the deficiencies in the companies’ books and records, particularly their financial statements. He argued that these deficiencies, as outlined in an affidavit, rendered the financial documents “incomprehensible” for the purpose of valuing his shares for a potential sale. The appellant asserted that this constituted oppressive conduct warranting a court-ordered remedy.
The appellant argued that the application judge failed to adequately address the alleged deficiencies in the companies’ financial records. They emphasized the affidavit’s assessment that these records were unusable for properly valuing the appellant’s shares. The core of his argument was that maintaining such poor financial records, which hindered a fair assessment of share value for a potential buyout, amounted to oppressive conduct under the Ontario Business Corporations Act (OBCA) and Canada Business Corporations Act (CBCA).
The Court of Appeal ultimately dismissed the appeal. In their oral reasons for decision, the Court stated that it found no error in the application judge’s consideration of the relevant statutory provisions and legal principles. Furthermore, it emphasized the considerable deference owed to the application judge’s factual findings.
The Court highlighted that the application judge was entitled to prefer the respondents’ evidence and reject the appellant’s evidence. A critical point raised by the Court was the nature of the affidavit evidence regarding the alleged deficiencies. The Court characterized this evidence as opinion evidence presumptively inadmissible because the affiant was not qualified as an expert witness. They stated unequivocally that the appellant’s argument regarding deficient financial records required expert opinion evidence, which was not provided.
The Court of Appeal echoed the application judge’s assessment that the fundamental issue in the case was a disagreement between the appellant and the respondents regarding the price at which the appellant wished to sell his shares. The Court firmly stated that the respondents were under no obligation to purchase the appellant’s shares at his desired price.
Drawing on established legal principles, the Court reiterated that the mere fact that a shareholder disagrees with the other shareholders’ or the corporation’s valuation of their shares or the method of calculation does not, in itself, constitute oppressive conduct warranting court intervention through the oppression remedy.
Based on its finding that no oppressive conduct had occurred, the Court of Appeal agreed with the application judge’s conclusion that the oppression remedy was not the appropriate legal mechanism to resolve the share purchase dispute between the parties. It affirmed that the relief sought by the appellant was not available to him under the oppression provisions of the OBCA and CBCA in this context.
The Court of Appeal also noted the parties had agreed the respondents were entitled to their costs before the Divisional Court (presumably related to a prior procedural step) and the Court of Appeal, set at an all-inclusive amount of $75,000 to be paid by the appellant. This significant cost award underscores the potential financial risks of pursuing legal action, particularly when the court finds the arguments unpersuasive.
The Kong v. Au decision offers several important lessons for clients and prospective clients involved in commercial litigation, particularly concerning shareholder disputes and the application of the oppression remedy.
The case reinforces that the threshold for demonstrating oppressive conduct is significant. Mere dissatisfaction or disagreement with corporate decisions or share valuation is insufficient. The conduct must be shown to be unfairly prejudicial, disregard the interests of, or unfairly prejudice the rights of a stakeholder.
When alleging deficiencies in financial records or other complex matters requiring specialized knowledge, qualified expert evidence is crucial. Lay opinions, even if presented through affidavits, are unlikely to be accepted by the court as sufficient proof of such deficiencies. Failing to provide expert evidence can be fatal to a claim.
The oppression remedy is not intended to force a buyout at a specific price or resolve disagreements solely about the value of shares. Shareholders who wish to have a mechanism for exiting their investment at a predetermined or fairly negotiated price should consider implementing shareholder agreements with clear valuation clauses and dispute resolution mechanisms at the outset of their business relationship.
Courts will look beyond peripheral arguments and focus on the fundamental nature of the dispute. In Kong, the Court identified the core issue as a disagreement over share price, not systemic oppressive conduct.
Navigating shareholder disputes requires careful legal strategy and a well-rooted understanding of Canadian corporate law principles. At Milosevic & Associates, our experienced team of Toronto corporate commercial lawyers advises directors, officers, and shareholders from businesses of all sizes and industries. We offer strategic guidance on shareholder matters and represent clients in resolving corporate disputes.
Milosevic & Associates prioritizes achieving swift, practical solutions to shareholder issues that could impact your business’s stability, growth, and long-term success. To discuss your commercial litigation matter, please call (416) 916-1387 or contact us online.
© 2025 Milosevic & Associates. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy / Disclaimer. Website designed and managed by Umbrella Legal Marketing