2 total
The Court of Appeal dismissed a shareholder's oppression appeal, finding that dissatisfaction with a share buyout price does not constitute oppressive conduct.
The appellant, Shiu Yiu Kong, appealed the dismissal of his application for an oppression remedy under the OBCA and CBCA.
The Court of Appeal found no error in the application judge’s consideration of the statutory provisions, legal principles, or factual findings.
The court held that the appellant’s criticisms of the companies’ books and records did not amount to oppressive conduct, especially as the supporting evidence was inadmissible opinion evidence.
The real dispute was over the price and method of share purchase, which did not warrant court intervention.
The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondents.
CBCA appeal transferred to Court of Appeal due to lack of Divisional Court jurisdiction.
The appellant appealed the dismissal of an oppression application involving two closely held companies, one incorporated under the OBCA and the other under the CBCA.
The Divisional Court noted a jurisdictional issue, as appeals under the CBCA lie to the Court of Appeal, while OBCA appeals lie to the Divisional Court.
To avoid divided jurisdiction, the Divisional Court transferred the CBCA appeal to the Court of Appeal pursuant to s. 110 of the Courts of Justice Act and adjourned the OBCA appeal to allow the appellant to seek a transfer of that matter to the Court of Appeal under s. 6 of the Courts of Justice Act.
