Skip to content

Brought to you by

Dentons logo

Dentons Commercial Litigation Blog

Latest trends and developments in commercial litigation.

open menu close menu

Dentons Commercial Litigation Blog

  • Home
  • About us
  • Topics
    • Topics
    • Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
    • Class Action
    • Commercial Litigation
    • Privacy Litigation
    • Professional Liability
    • Securities Litigation
    • Technology and New Media

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice reaffirms that the statutory oppression remedy cannot be used to advance common wrongful dismissal claims

By Chloe Snider and Changhai Zhu
May 30, 2022
  • Commercial Litigation
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share via email Share on LinkedIn

In a recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, the Court reaffirmed that the statutory oppression remedy is not a vehicle for creative plaintiffs to advance common wrongful dismissal claims.

In Abbasbayli v Fiera Foods Company et al, 2022 ONSC 1968 (Abbasbayli), the plaintiff was a non-shareholding employee of the defendant. He commenced an action against the defendant corporations for wrongful dismissal. The plaintiff’s action also included a plea of oppression under the Business Corporations Act (Ontario)(OBC”) against the individual directors of the defendant corporations. The oppression claim in the original claim was struck out for failing to disclose a cause of action, with leave granted to amend the pleading. The plaintiff amended, but the amended claim was again the subject of a motion to strike for failing to disclose a cause of action.

The Court again struck out the amended pleading of oppression, this time without leave to amend. Abbasbayli provides litigants with two key takeaways.

  1. Establishing oppression in connection with a wrongful dismissal

Although employees have advanced oppression claims in the past, the oppression remedy is not generally a vehicle for non-shareholding employees to advance wrongful dismissal claims.  The plaintiff in Abbasbayli attempted to rely on a number of cases where non-shareholding employees were successful in claims for oppression. However, in almost all of those cases, there was some element of internal corporate maneuvering, used as a tool to defeat the employee’s legitimate claim for damages. Such corporate maneuvering included examples where the employer wound up the business, or where the employer’s assets were transferred out of the company, leaving the corporation unable to satisfy the outstanding claims of the employees. In the one case where there was no such corporate maneuvering, the sole officer and director of the employer had misled the plaintiff employees into working for the corporation while knowing all along that the corporation was never in a position to pay the employees what they were owed.[1] It takes unusual circumstances for an employee to establish oppression in connection with a wrongful dismissal.

2. Interests protected by the oppression remedy

Although the definition of a complainant for the purposes of the oppression remedy is fairly broad, the oppression remedy only protects the interests of the complainant as a security holder, creditor, officer or director of the corporation. The Court considered the text of section 248 of the OBCA and concluded that while “complainant” may be broader than “security holder, creditor, director or officer of the corporation”, in order to establish oppression, the conduct complained of must be oppressive, unfairly prejudicial to, or unfairly disregarding of the interests of a security holder, creditor, director or officer of the corporation.[2] Having considered the impugned provisions of the plaintiff’s amended pleading, the Court found that each of the plaintiff’s pleaded reasonable expectations were all qua employee, and not qua shareholder, creditor, officer, or director.[3]

Conclusion

In the result, the Court in Abbasbayli struck the plaintiff’s pleading with respect to the oppression claim against the director defendants without leave to amend. Although leave to amend should only be refused in the clearest of cases,  in this case, the plaintiff already had “the benefit of a prior motion and decisions from both [the ONSC] and the Court of Appeal,” and “the defendants’ [previous motion to strike] had provided a road map to the plaintiff about what was required to properly plead the claim.” Although the plaintiff had tried to fix the pleading by mirroring language from the various tests, it was clear that “an oppression remedy claim cannot succeed on these pleaded facts, even assuming them all to be true.” That’s because the claim was really a wrongful dismissal claim, not an oppression claim.

Please reach out to Chloe Snider or any member of Dentons Canada’s Litigation and Dispute Resolution group for any questions about this blog.


[1] Abbasbayli at para 28.

[2] Ibid at para 21.

[3] Ibid at para 33.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share via email Share on LinkedIn
Subscribe and stay updated
Receive our latest blog posts by email.
Stay in Touch
Chloe Snider

About Chloe Snider

Chloe Snider is a partner in Dentons’ Litigation and Dispute Resolution and Transformative Technologies groups. Her practice focuses on litigating complex commercial disputes and assisting clients manage risk. She is a strategic and critical legal thinker who works efficiently to develop practical solutions for her clients.

All posts Full bio

Changhai Zhu

About Changhai Zhu

Changhai is an associate in the Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice group of the Dentons' Calgary office.

All posts Full bio

RELATED POSTS

  • Commercial Litigation
  • Mining

Use of dispute financing in the mining sector

Dispute financing has seen a marked expansion over the last decade as new funders emerge and existing funders increase their […]

By Rachel Howie, Michael D. Schafler, and Matthew Diskin
  • Commercial Litigation

Duggan v Durham: Ontario Court of Appeal concludes 10-year saga on availability of trial bifurcation

By Marina Sampson
  • Civil Litigation
  • Commercial Litigation
  • General

To apply for summary judgment, or not to apply for summary judgment, is that still the question?

By Tara McCarthy

About Dentons

Dentons is designed to be different. As the world’s largest law firm with 20,000 professionals in over 200 locations in more than 80 countries, we can help you grow, protect, operate and finance your business. Our polycentric and purpose-driven approach, together with our commitment to inclusion, diversity, equity and ESG, ensures we challenge the status quo to stay focused on what matters most to you. www.dentons.com

Dentons boilerplate image

Twitter

Categories

  • Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
  • Arbitration
  • Civil Litigation
  • Class Action
  • Commercial Litigation
  • Covid-19
  • Energy
  • Environmental Litigation
  • Estates and Trusts
  • General
  • Government Investigations
  • Intellectual Property
  • International Arbitration
  • Medical Malpractice
  • Mining
  • Privacy
  • Privacy and Cybersecurity
  • Privacy Litigation
  • Professional Liability
  • Regulatory
  • Securities Litigation
  • Technology and new media
  • White-Collar Crime

Subscribe and stay updated

Receive our latest blog posts by email.

Stay in Touch

Dentons logo

© 2022 Dentons

  • Legal notices
  • Privacy policy
  • Terms of use
  • Cookies on this site