Oppression or Derivative? Greater Clarity Through the Requirement for Direct Harm
In this article, the author seeks to discern the limits of the broadly scoped oppression action. The author first discusses the oppression and derivative actions and their purposes, and then argues that the oppression provision does not embrace derivative harm. Using the recent Supreme Court of Canada decision in Brunette, the author reinforces the requirement of direct injury distinct from that suffered by the corporation, when bringing a personal action. The author then examines case law in pursuit of clarity about what constitutes direct harm and whether it is difficult to demonstrate. The author concludes by recommending that the Supreme Court clarify the distinction between oppression and derivative actions by integrating the direct harm requirement into the test for oppression.
Author(s) retain original copyright in the substantive content of the titled work, subject to the following rights that are granted indefinitely:
- Author(s) grant the Alberta Law Review permission to produce, publish, disseminate, and distribute the titled work in electronic format to online database services, including, but not limited to: LexisNexis, QuickLaw, HeinOnline, and EBSCO;
- Author(s) grant the Alberta Law Review permission to post the titled work on the Alberta Law Review website and/or related websites.
- Author(s) agree that the titled work may be used for educational or instructional purposes and/or in educational or instructional materials. The author(s) acknowledge that the titled work is subject to other such "fair dealing" provisions and applicable legislation.
- Author(s) grant a limited license to those accessing the titled work from an electronic database or an Alberta Law Review website to download the titled work onto their computer and to print a copy for their own personal, non-commercial use, subject to proper attribution.
To use the journal's content elsewhere, permission must be obtained from the author(s) and the Alberta Law Review.