Recapping Shareholder Remedies and Oppression Claims

Harrison Neill-MorabitoCivil Litigation, Commercial, Commercial and Contract Litigation, Commercial Contracts, Commercial Law, Commercial Litigation, Shareholder Disputes0 Comments

Shareholder oppression occurs when majority shareholders or those in control of a corporation engage in conduct that unfairly prejudices, disregards, or harms the interests of minority shareholders. This goes beyond routine business disagreements—it involves a misuse of corporate power that disproportionately impacts minority stakeholders. The issue is particularly common in closely held private corporations, where shares are not publicly traded, and minority shareholders typically have little ability to sell their interests or exit the business. As a result, they may find themselves trapped in a situation where their rights and investments are vulnerable. Recognizing and addressing shareholder oppression is essential for protecting minority rights and maintaining fairness in corporate governance. One-way shareholders may seek compensation for wrongdoings is through an “oppression” action. Ontario’s oppression remedy is set out in section 241 of the Ontario Business Corporations Act (“OBCA”). In addition to the OBCA, federally incorporated companies are governed by the … Read More

Licensing Breaches and Lingering Fiduciary Obligations – Ontario Court of Appeal Rules License Agreement Breach Constitutes Fiduciary Duty Violation

Harrison Neill-MorabitoBusiness Arbitrator, Business Dispute Arbitrator, Business Disputes, Business Law, Business Litigation, Business Torts | Economic Torts, Civil Litigation, Closely-Held Business Disputes, Commercial and Contract Litigation, Commercial Contracts, Commercial Law, Commercial Litigation, Contract Disputes0 Comments

In 7868073 Canada Ltd v 1841978 Ontario Inc, 2024 ONCA 371, the Ontario Court of Appeal recently assessed the legal effects of engaging in competing business ventures and the importance of honoring fiduciary duties stemming from license agreements following a parties departure from a former corporation. Robert Langlois (“Langlois”), alongside two partners, launched a powder-coating business, whereby Langlois granted a perpetual license (the “License”) for his industry “knowledge” to 7868073 Ontario Inc. (“786”), a company which the three parties formed and held equal shares in. In turn, 786 owned shares in two other companies (collectively referred to as “ACS”), which Langlois worked with. When Langlois left ACS to start another business without informing his former partners, ACS alleged that Langlois breached the License. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial judge’s findings, rejecting the argument that the License was void ab initio due to its unreasonable worldwide scope and restrictions … Read More

Confidentiality, Non-Competition and Non-Solicitation Clauses In Contracts

Sabrina Saltmarsh, B.A. (Hons), J.D.Breach of Confidentiality Clause, Breach of Non-Competition Agreement, Breach of Non-Competition Clause, Breach of Non-Solicitation Agreement, Breach of Non-Solicitation Clause, Business Disputes, Business Law, Business Litigation, Business Torts | Economic Torts, Closely-Held Business Disputes, Commercial, Commercial Contracts, Commercial List Matters, Commercial Litigation, Confidentiality Agreement, Confidentiality Clause, Corporate Litigation, Directors' and Officers' Liability, Injunction & Specific Performance, Joint Venture Disputes, Management Contracts, Mareva Injunction, Non-Compete, Non-Competition Agreement, Non-Competition Clause, Non-Solicitation Agreement, Non-Solicitation Clause, Norwich Order, Partnership Dispute, Partnerships and Shareholder Disputes, Sale of Business Disputes, Shareholder Disputes0 Comments

Confidentiality, non-competition, and non-solicitation clauses often show up in a variety of business contracts including employment and executive contracts, shareholder, and director agreements, as well as, independent contractor agreements, joint venture agreements and mergers, to name a few. A question that must be considered by contracting parties to such agreements is: What is the enforceability of these types of restrictive covenants? This question particularly becomes important when parties may part ways and a breach of the clauses is suspected or confirmed. These clauses are premised on the assumption that the relationship between the parties will result in the sharing of proprietary and sensitive business knowledge, contacts and relationships related to the operations of a business, which the company seeks to protect, particularly once the relationship between the parties ends. Non-competition clauses usually restrict one’s ability to engage in a competing business. Non-solicitation clauses prohibit one from soliciting stakeholders and contacts … Read More