The plaintiff, a shareholder and creditor of a closely held corporation, brought an oppression action alleging that another shareholder and director misappropriated corporate funds.
The defendant moved to dismiss the claims, arguing they were derivative in nature and required leave under s. 246 of the Business Corporations Act.
The motion judge dismissed the motion, finding the claims were properly advanced under the oppression remedy in s. 248.
The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, noting the overlap between derivative actions and oppression claims, particularly in closely held corporations where the risk of frivolous lawsuits is minimized.