Six disciplines. One accountable team. Every client is matched with the right lawyer for their matter.
From courtroom litigation to Fractional GC retainers to international market entry.
Founded on the conviction that the quality of your legal representation should have nothing to do with the size of your retainer.
Two-way referrals, co-counsel access, CPD sessions, mentorship and exclusive events.
Legal updates, firm news, webinar invitations, and award announcements.
Four GTA locations. Walk-in consultations. Weekend appointments.
Free calculators, downloadable guides, and legal checklists, built by our lawyers for real Ontario situations.
When a closely held corporation stops working, the fight is rarely about law. It is about who leaves, at what price, and who controls the company while that is decided. We litigate all three.
Arrange a Call →Section 248 of the Business Corporations Act (Ontario) gives the Superior Court broad power to correct conduct that is oppressive, unfairly prejudicial to, or that unfairly disregards the interests of a shareholder, director, officer or creditor.
Section 248 of the Business Corporations Act (Ontario), and section 241 of the Canada Business Corporations Act, allow a shareholder, director, officer, creditor or other proper complainant to apply to the Superior Court where corporate conduct is oppressive, unfairly prejudicial to, or unfairly disregards their interests. The court has broad remedial power, including ordering a share buy-out or compensation.
Tell us briefly what is going on. A lawyer reviews every enquiry and replies within 24 hours on business days.
A lawyer replies within 24 hours on business days. Urgent? Call +1 416 333 6200, answered 24/7. Submitting this form does not create a solicitor-client relationship.
Almost every shareholder dispute we are asked to litigate has the same origin: shares were issued without a shareholder agreement that says how someone leaves and how their shares are priced. A minority shareholder in a private Ontario corporation has no market for their shares, no right to force a dividend and, absent an agreement, no right to compel a buy-out. When the relationship deteriorates, the minority is locked in and the majority controls the payroll, the dividends and the board.
The conduct that follows is familiar. The minority shareholder is removed as an employee and stops being paid, while the majority continues to draw a salary. Dividends are discontinued and profits are distributed as management compensation instead. New shares are issued at a nominal price, diluting the minority. Corporate opportunities are diverted to a company the majority owns separately. Financial statements and the corporate records stop being provided. Individually these may be defensible business decisions. Together they form the classic factual pattern of an oppression claim.
Lexaltico LLP acts for both minority and majority shareholders in corporations governed by the Business Corporations Act (Ontario) and the Canada Business Corporations Act. The strategic considerations differ sharply depending on which side you are on, but the endgame is usually the same: a valuation and a buy-out. The litigation exists to establish the price and the leverage.
| Remedy | Provision | Whose loss is it | Leave required |
|---|---|---|---|
| Oppression remedy | OBCA s.248; CBCA s.241 | The complainant personally | No |
| Derivative action | OBCA s.246; CBCA s.239 | The corporation | Yes, leave of the court |
| Dissent and appraisal | OBCA s.185; CBCA s.190 | The dissenting shareholder | No, but strict notice steps apply |
| Compliance order | OBCA s.253; CBCA s.247 | Enforces the statute, articles or a unanimous shareholder agreement | No |
| Winding up, just and equitable | OBCA s.207; CBCA s.214 | Terminal remedy for deadlock | No, but rarely granted |
| Investigation | OBCA s.161; CBCA s.229 | Court-appointed inspector | Application to the court |
The oppression remedy is the dominant tool. It is available to a broad class of complainants, including registered and beneficial shareholders, former shareholders, directors, officers and any other person the court considers a proper person to make the application. It protects reasonable expectations rather than strict legal rights, which is why the evidence in an oppression case is usually the history of the relationship, not just the corporate documents. The court's remedial jurisdiction under section 248(3) is deliberately open-ended and expressly includes ordering the purchase of shares, replacing directors, varying a transaction, appointing a receiver and ordering compensation.
A derivative action is different in kind. It is brought on behalf of the corporation to recover a loss suffered by the corporation, such as misappropriation of corporate assets or diversion of a corporate opportunity. Leave of the court is required and the applicant must show that notice was given to the directors, that the applicant is acting in good faith, and that the action appears to be in the interests of the corporation. Any recovery goes to the corporation, not to the complainant, which is why oppression is often pleaded alongside it.
Oppression proceedings can be commenced by application under Rule 14.05 or by action, and the choice matters. An application proceeds on affidavit evidence with cross-examinations under Rule 39 and can be heard within months rather than years. An action provides full documentary discovery under Rule 30 and oral examinations under Rule 31, which is essential where the facts are contested and the corporate records are in the respondent's hands. Where a matter begins as an application and turns out to require discovery, the court can direct a trial of an issue or convert the proceeding under Rule 38.10.
Interim relief is frequently the decisive step. Where assets are being dissipated or a transaction is about to close, an interlocutory injunction under section 101 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 40 may be sought on the three-part test from RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General): a serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm if the injunction is refused, and a balance of convenience favouring the moving party. An undertaking as to damages is required. In an appropriate case the court may instead appoint a receiver or an interim manager, or order production of the corporate records.
Shareholders have statutory rights of access to certain corporate records under the OBCA, including the register of shareholders and, on request, the annual financial statements. Exercising those rights before litigation begins is cheap, creates a paper trail, and a refusal is itself evidence of a pattern of exclusion.
Exclusion from management is the most common complaint. In a small corporation where all shareholders were expected to work in the business, removing one of them from employment, from the board and from access to information can defeat the reasonable expectations on which the investment was made. The analysis is not simply whether the removal was legally permitted, but whether it was consistent with the understanding on which the shareholder acquired their shares. That is why the founding documents, the emails at the time of the investment and the actual conduct of the parties over the years all matter.
Diversion of value is the second pattern. Profit that would otherwise be available for dividends is paid out as salary, bonus, management fees or rent to entities the majority controls. Related party transactions on non-commercial terms have the same effect. Because the corporation still shows modest profits, the minority sees no distribution while the majority is fully compensated. Proving this requires the corporation's financial records and often lawyer accounting evidence to identify what a reasonable arm's length compensation figure would have been.
Dilution is the third. Issuing shares to the majority or its associates at a price below fair value, without offering the minority a proportionate opportunity to subscribe, reduces the minority's percentage and its share of any eventual sale proceeds. Directors approving such an issuance must act honestly and in good faith with a view to the best interests of the corporation and exercise the care, diligence and skill of a reasonably prudent person, as required by section 134 of the OBCA. An issuance whose real purpose is to entrench control rather than to fund the business is vulnerable.
Deadlock is a category of its own. In a fifty-fifty corporation with no casting vote and no shareholder agreement, neither side can pass a resolution and the corporation can become paralysed. The available responses include an oppression application seeking a buy-out, an application to wind up the corporation on just and equitable grounds, or a negotiated shotgun mechanism agreed after the fact. Winding up is a blunt instrument, and courts prefer a buy-out where one is workable, because liquidation usually destroys the going concern value both sides want.
Not every disappointed shareholder has been oppressed. The remedy protects reasonable expectations, and an expectation is not reasonable merely because it was held. A shareholder who invested passively, took no role in management and received the returns the articles provided has a weak claim that they expected employment. A shareholder who signed a shareholder agreement setting out exactly how compensation and dividends would be determined will find it difficult to assert an expectation inconsistent with that document.
Business judgment is also a real answer. Courts do not sit in review of commercial decisions made honestly, in good faith and on a reasonable basis, even where those decisions turn out badly or disadvantage a minority incidentally. Where a board can show that a decision to retain earnings, to restructure operations or to terminate an underperforming shareholder-employee was made for genuine business reasons and properly documented, the claim is materially harder to establish. Contemporaneous board minutes recording the reasons for a decision are therefore the majority's best defence, and they must be created at the time, not reconstructed afterward.
Procedural defences also matter. A derivative claim dressed up as a personal one may be struck for want of leave. A claim brought more than two years after the complainant discovered the conduct may be statute barred. Delay, acquiescence and acceptance of benefits under the arrangement complained of are all relevant. And because oppression is discretionary, a respondent who has made a fair open offer to purchase the applicant's shares at an independently determined value places itself in a strong position on both the merits and costs.
Where the court orders a buy-out, the valuation becomes the case. Business valuation evidence is expert evidence subject to Rule 53.03, which requires an expert report served in advance and an acknowledgement of the expert's duty to the court. The contested issues are usually the valuation date, the appropriate methodology, the treatment of excess management compensation paid to the majority, and whether a minority discount should be applied. A discount can materially change the outcome, and in oppression cases courts have declined to apply one where doing so would reward the oppressive conduct.
Lawyer costs are substantial and should be budgeted from the outset. In a mid-sized private company dispute the valuation evidence on both sides is frequently the largest single disbursement in the case. That expense is one of the strongest arguments for a negotiated resolution, and it is why we push for an agreed single valuator or an early joint valuation exercise wherever the parties can be persuaded to accept one.
A shareholder agreement with a shotgun buy-sell clause, a right of first refusal or an agreed valuation formula avoids all of this. Where one exists, the litigation is usually about whether the clause was validly triggered rather than about what the shares are worth. If you are still on good terms with your co-owners, that agreement is the cheapest litigation insurance available.
Shareholder litigation is expensive, personal and disruptive to the underlying business, which is an asset both sides usually still own. We begin with a written assessment of the claim, the available remedies, the likely valuation range and the cost of getting there. In many cases the right first move is a without-prejudice proposal supported by a credible litigation plan, rather than a filing. Most of these disputes end in a negotiated buy-out; the litigation determines who has the leverage when that negotiation happens.
Costs exposure in shareholder litigation is significant on both sides. Ontario is a loser-pays jurisdiction under section 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57, and in a hard-fought oppression case the costs award can approach the value of the shares in issue. A well-timed offer to settle under Rule 49 is therefore both a settlement tool and a costs shield, and we build the offer strategy into the case plan rather than leaving it until the eve of hearing.
We coordinate with valuators and with your accountant on the tax structure of any exit, because how a buy-out is characterised affects what the departing shareholder actually keeps. Contact our litigation group to discuss a shareholder dispute.
Our lawyers offer a introductory call for most matters. Call, email, or book online. Do not sign anything before speaking with us.
55 University Ave, Suite 1100
Toronto, ON M5J 2H7
2 Sheppard Ave East, Suite 303, Toronto, ON M2N 5Y7
Monday to Friday: 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM
Evenings & weekends by appointment
Related Civil Litigation Pages & Guides
No obligation. We will tell you honestly whether we can help, and what it would cost, before you commit to anything.
A lawyer replies within 24 hours on business days. Urgent? Call +1 416 333 6200, answered 24/7. Submitting this form does not create a solicitor-client relationship.
Contacting us does not create a solicitor-client relationship. Please do not send confidential information until we have confirmed we can act for you. We aim to reply within one business day. Sending this form does not meet any court deadline or limitation period.
If you or a child are in immediate danger, call 911. This form is not an emergency service and is read during business hours. Assaulted Women’s Helpline 1-866-863-0511, Talk4Healing 1-855-554-4325, both open around the clock.
Lexaltico LLP
How Lexaltico LLP handles personal information, under PIPEDA and Ontario law.
When you use a form on this site, email us or telephone us, we collect what you choose to send: your name, email address, telephone number and a description of the situation. Nothing on this site requires you to give more than that.
We collect non identifying technical information when you browse: IP address, browser type, pages viewed and time spent. It is used to understand how the site is used and to improve it. It is not used to identify you.
We do not collect sensitive personal information through this website. Detailed personal and legal information is collected only after a solicitor client relationship exists, through the channels set up for that purpose.
What you send is used to reply to you, to run a conflict check, to assess whether the firm can assist, and, if a retainer follows, to carry out the work.
We do not use your personal information for marketing without your express consent, and we do not sell, rent or trade it. If you consent to receive anything from us, every message carries a way to stop, as required by Canada’s Anti Spam Legislation.
Information given to us in the course of a legal matter is protected by solicitor client privilege. We do not disclose privileged information without your consent, except where the law or a court order requires it.
Non privileged contact information may be shared with the providers who help us run the firm and this website, and with people engaged on your matter such as translators, agents and court reporters. All of them are under confidentiality obligations.
Information submitted through a form travels through third party services in order to reach us by email, and may be processed or stored outside Canada, where it can be subject to the laws of that place. Submitting a form is your consent to that transfer. If you would rather not, telephone us instead.
This site uses cookies to understand how it is used. Advertising cookies are set only if you press Accept. If you press Decline, measurement is switched off for you entirely, nothing further is sent, and anything already stored on your device is cleared. The site works either way.
You can change your answer at any time by clearing this site’s cookies in your browser, which brings the question back.
Under the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, S.C. 2000, c. 5 you may ask what personal information we hold about you, ask us to correct anything inaccurate, and withdraw consent to our use of it, subject to legal and contractual limits. We reply within thirty days or explain why we need longer.
Client files are kept for the period the law and the Law Society require, ordinarily seven years after a matter closes, which reflects limitation periods and the possibility of later proceedings. After that they are securely destroyed or anonymised. You may ask for earlier deletion, subject to those obligations.
If you contact us and no retainer follows, what you sent is retained only as long as our conflict records require, then destroyed.
Privacy Officer, Lexaltico LLP
55 University Avenue, Suite 1100, Toronto, Ontario M5J 2H7
privacy@lexaltico.com
+1 416 333 6200
If you are not satisfied with our answer you may complain to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada.
Short, and written to be read rather than scrolled past.
This site publishes several hundred pages about Ontario law. They are written carefully, they cite statutes and cases by name, and they are reviewed. None of that makes them advice about your matter. Law is applied to facts, and we do not know yours.
The difference is practical rather than technical. A page explaining that spousal support is usually indefinite after a twenty year marriage is accurate as a general statement and may be wrong about you, because of a domestic contract you signed, a period of separation you have forgotten, or an income that is not what a tax return says it is.
Law also changes. Pages carry a review date where one is relevant. A page reviewed last year may not reflect an amendment made since, and a page about a subject currently before an appellate court may be overtaken between your reading it and your acting on it.
A conflict check must be completed. We act for a great many people and businesses, and we cannot act against a current client or use what we learned from a former one. That check happens before anything else and occasionally means we have to decline.
We must confirm in writing that we are prepared to act. Not every matter is one we can take, and saying so early is better than taking a file we cannot properly serve.
A retainer agreement must be signed. It sets out what we are doing, what we are not doing, who is responsible for what, and how fees work. Until it is signed no relationship exists, whatever has been discussed.
Information sent through a form, or by email, before a retainer is signed is not covered by solicitor client privilege. That is not a policy we chose. It follows from there being no solicitor client relationship for the privilege to attach to.
It can also create a problem for you. If you send us detailed information about a dispute and we are later approached by the other side, what you sent may affect whether we can act for either of you.
So tell us the shape of the problem and leave out the detail: the area of law, roughly when it arose, and whether anything is urgent. That is enough for us to say whether we can help. The documents come after the retainer.
Case results described anywhere on this site are real and are described accurately, and they are specific to their own facts. A settlement at three times the original offer happened because of that employer, that contract and that person’s history. It says nothing about what your matter is worth.
Client reviews are the views of the people who wrote them. We do not offer anything in return for a review, we do not write them, and we do not ask only the clients we expect to be positive.
Calculators on this site produce estimates from the figures you enter. They apply published formulas and they cannot know about the facts that most often change the answer.
The content of this site belongs to Lexaltico LLP or its licensors. You are welcome to read it, print it and quote it with attribution. You may not republish it as your own.
We link to statutes, regulations, court decisions and government pages because a reader should be able to check us. We do not control those sites and are not responsible for them, and a link is not an endorsement.
To the fullest extent the law permits, Lexaltico LLP is not liable for any loss arising from your use of, or reliance on, anything published on this website.
These terms are governed by the law of Ontario and the federal law of Canada that applies in Ontario. Lawyers and licensed professionals at the firm are regulated by the Law Society of Ontario, and marketing on this site is intended to comply with the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Every limit on what this website tells you, and every thing it does not do, in one place rather than in small print at the bottom of each page.
Four limits, and they matter in this order.
Everything published on this website is general information. It is not legal advice, it does not take account of the facts of any particular situation, and reading it does not create a solicitor client relationship. Do not act, or decide not to act, on anything here without speaking to a lawyer licensed in your jurisdiction about your own circumstances.
These pages describe the law of Ontario, and of Alberta only where a page says so expressly. They do not describe the law of any other province, territory or country. Law that looks similar across jurisdictions frequently is not.
Each page states the law as at the review date shown on it. Legislation is amended and case law develops. A page accurate when written may no longer be.
These pages describe how a rule usually works. That is not the same as how it applies to your facts. The exceptions are where most real matters live, and a page written for a general reader cannot tell you whether you are inside a rule or inside its exception.
If you or a child are in immediate danger, call 911.
This website is not an emergency service. Enquiries sent through a form here are read during business hours and a reply may take up to one business day.
Open at all hours:
Assaulted Women’s Helpline 1-866-863-0511
Talk4Healing 1-855-554-4325
Kids Help Phone 1-800-668-6868
Using this website, submitting a form, sending an email or speaking to us on the telephone does not make us your lawyers. That relationship arises only when the firm has confirmed in writing that it has agreed to act, a conflict search has been completed, and a retainer has been signed.
Do not send confidential or sensitive information through this website or by email until we have confirmed in writing that we can act for you. Information sent before that point is not treated as confidential and may prevent us from acting for you, or for someone else, in a connected matter.
We aim to reply within one business day. Contacting us does not guarantee a reply within any particular period, does not oblige the firm to act, and does not stop, extend or satisfy any limitation period, filing date or court deadline.
Our line is answered 24 hours a day, every day of the year. Outside office hours calls are taken by our intake service, who record your details and pass them to the firm. A lawyer responds during the next business day, or sooner if the matter is urgent. Answering the telephone is not the same as giving legal advice, and no relationship arises from that call.
Lexaltico LLP is regulated by the Law Society of Ontario under the Law Society Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.8. All lawyers practising in Ontario through the firm are members in good standing.
Alberta matters are handled by lawyers licensed with, and in good standing with, the Law Society of Alberta. A lawyer licensed in Ontario is not thereby licensed in Alberta, and the reverse is also true.
Immigration consulting is provided by Regulated Canadian Immigration Consultants in good standing with the College of Immigration and Citizenship Consultants under the College of Immigration and Citizenship Consultants Act, S.C. 2019, c. 29, s. 292.
Not everyone at the firm is a lawyer.
Each page and biography states which applies. Ask at the outset who will handle your matter and under which licence.
We serve clients in thirteen languages. Every page of this website is written and published in English. Where anything is provided in another language, the English version governs in the event of a difference. If you need an interpreter, tell us when you book and we will arrange one.
The complimentary 15 minute initial assessment is a brief introductory conversation. It does not include a review of your documents and does not constitute legal advice.
The firm charges a fee for substantive consultations, including in civil litigation, criminal defence and immigration matters. The firm may waive that fee at its discretion. Any fee is disclosed in advance and credited in full toward your account if you retain the firm.
Where we refer a matter to another firm, including through LexKonnect, we comply with Rule 3.6-6.1 of the Law Society of Ontario’s Rules of Professional Conduct. Any referral fee is set out in the Law Society’s standard referral agreement, signed by you before the referral proceeds, and no fee is payable to us unless and until the receiving firm has been paid for its work. You are never obliged to accept a referral and are free to retain any firm you choose. No referral arrangement affects the independent professional judgment of any lawyer at this firm.
They produce estimates from what you type and cannot know the rest. They do not account for the terms of your contract, statutory exceptions, or the discretion a court will apply. Do not make a decision on a number produced by a calculator.
Any outcome described happened on its own facts, before its own decision maker, under the law as it stood at the time. Past results do not predict or guarantee the result of any other case.
Reviews shown here are written by third parties and published on platforms we do not control. Each describes one person’s experience of one matter. They are not a promise, a prediction or a guarantee about any other matter.
This site links to regulators, courts, government sources, professional associations and social platforms, all operated by others. We do not control them, we are not responsible for their content or accuracy, and a link is not an endorsement.
Failure to start a proceeding within the applicable limitation period may permanently bar your claim. In Ontario the general period is two years from discovery under the Limitations Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 24, Sched. B. Shorter periods apply to many claims. Seek advice promptly. Nothing on this website extends a limitation period.
We aim to meet the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act and WCAG 2.1 Level AA. If any part of this site prevents you from reaching us, telephone +1 416 333 6200 or write to hello@lexaltico.com and we will provide the information in another format, at no charge.
Content on this website is © Lexaltico LLP. It may be read and printed for personal reference. It may not be reproduced, republished or used commercially without written permission.