The applicant and respondent were former romantic and business partners who co-owned a corporation.
Following the breakdown of their personal relationship, the respondent excluded the applicant from the business, denied her remuneration, and diverted corporate assets to his own consulting company.
The applicant sought an oppression remedy, requesting that the respondent be ordered to purchase her shares.
The court found that the respondent's conduct was oppressive and violated the applicant's reasonable expectations.
However, because the respondent could not afford to buy the shares and the business was entirely dependent on him, the court ordered the respondent to pay $170,000 in damages for the diverted remuneration and ordered the corporation to be wound up.
