Supreme Court Clarifies Ambit of Directors’ Personal Liability Under the Oppression Remedy
The Supreme Court of Canada (the “Court”) recently released its decision in Wilson v. Alharayeri, 2017 SCC 39 (“Wilson”). In Wilson, the Court clarified the circumstances in which company directors can be held personally liable under the “oppression remedy”. Notably, the Court clarified that personal liability can be imposed even where directors do not act in bad faith or acquire a personal benefit.
Background
The oppression remedy has been described as "the broadest, most comprehensive and most open-ended shareholder remedy in the common law world." Unlike remedies that protect the rights of the corporation itself, the oppression remedy protects against oppressive acts of the corporation and its directors that violate the “reasonable expectations” of corporate stakeholders regarding their legal and equitable interests. The remedy is available to a wide range of stakeholders, including legal or beneficial shareholders, creditors, directors and officers.
In Wilson, a shareholder (Mr. Wilson) alleged that the corporation’s directors – and, specifically, the company’s President and CEO (Mr. Alharayeri) – had unfairly disregarded his reasonable expectation that he would be permitted to convert a class of preferred shares that he held into common shares of the company at the same time that holders of another class of preferred shares (some of which were held by Mr. Alharayeri) were permitted to convert their shares. After finding that Mr. Wilson’s expectations were reasonable and had indeed been unfairly disregarded, the Court imposed personal liability on Mr. Alharayeri on the bases that he was primarily responsible for the oppressive conduct and that he had benefitted personally from the transaction (through his holding of the other class of preferred shares).
The Test for Personal Liability of Directors
The test for personal liability of directors under the oppression remedy was established in a 1998 decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Budd v. Gentra Inc. (1998), 43 BLR (2d) 27 (“Budd”). Since Budd, courts have somewhat narrowed the scope of personal liability for directors by requiring that a director acted in bad faith or acquired a personal benefit before ordering a remedy against that director personally. The Court in Wilson, however, clarified that while bad faith and personal benefit are “hallmarks of conduct properly attracting personal liability” and “one of them will typically be present” in cases where personal liability is warranted, a lack of bad faith or personal benefit is not necessarily a sufficient defence for directors.
Rather, personal liability will be imposed where:
- the director exercised, or failed to exercise, his or her powers so as to effect the oppressive conduct in question; and
- personal liability is an appropriate remedy in all the circumstances.
With respect to the second factor, as noted by the Court in Wilson, the oppression remedy is an “equitable remedy that seeks to ensure fairness”. The principle that emerges is that personal liability attaches to directors where fair and reasonable, in all the circumstances. Fairness also requires that personal liability, if it is imposed, may go no further than is necessary to rectify the oppression and vindicate the reasonable expectations of corporate stakeholders. Ultimately, whether personal liability should be imposed (and if so, the quantum of that liability) is a highly fact-dependent inquiry.1
Discussion
In Wilson, the Court upheld the trial judge’s finding of personal liability primarily because of the sufficient evidence of Mr. Alharayeri’s “lead role” in the oppressive conduct and the fact that he acquired a personal benefit as a result. However, the Court acknowledges that claims of oppression are highly fact-specific and makes clear that its decision in Wilson does not represent a fundamental shift in the law of oppression as it is currently known. Nevertheless, it is possible that more claims against company directors will be made as plaintiffs’ counsel reconsider the ambit of director liability under the oppression remedy in light of the Court’s decision. Whether the Court’s clarification of the legal test for personal liability leads to an actual increase of instances of personal liability for company directors remains to be seen.
Moving forward, company directors are encouraged to apply principles of good corporate governance when evaluating and implementing corporate actions. In particular, directors should ensure that corporate decisions result from processes that are fully informed and independent, and that any conflicts of interest (or perceived conflicts of interest) are appropriately addressed. Heightened caution is warranted in the context of corporate decisions that could provide directors or officers with benefits that do not accrue to all shareholders (or other corporate stakeholders). Directors must in all instances ask themselves whether a given decision is in the best interests of the company and as fair as possible to all corporate stakeholders, understanding that a lack of personal benefit or bad faith is not necessarily a complete defence to personal liability.
[1] Directors should be aware that factual findings of this nature, when made by a trial judge, are difficult to challenge on appeal (as Wilson, which is itself a failed appeal, exemplifies).
Authors
Insights
-
Litigation and Dispute Resolution
No “Magic Words” Required: Supreme Court of Canada Holds Exclusion Clauses Released Seller From Implied Statutory Conditions
On May 31, 2024, the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Earthco Soil Mixtures Inc. v. Pine Valley Enterprises Inc., 2024 SCC 20, which clarifies how contractual exclusion clauses are to… -
Capital Markets
Public Safety Canada Releases Updated Guidance on Modern Slavery Reporting Obligations
The Fighting Against Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains Act (the “Act”) came into force on January 1, 2024, implementing enhanced reporting requirements for certain entities to… -
Crisis Management and Urgent Proceedings
Panoramic Next: Crisis Management 2024 - Canada Chapter
Mark Dunn and Sarah Stothart co-authored the Canada Chapter of Panoramic Next: Crisis Management 2024. Through a series of interviews with expert legal… -
Capital Markets
Modern Slavery Reporting Obligations for Canadian Entities Effective January 1, 2024
The Fighting Against Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains Act (the “Act”) came into force on January 1, 2024, implementing enhanced reporting requirements for certain companies and… -
Litigation and Dispute Resolution
Director Duties and Climate Change
Decisions earlier this year from the English courts in ClientEarth v Shell Plc et al., and the recent appeal decision from the Court of Appeal of England and Wales, shed light on climate change issues… -
Intellectual Property
Canadian Intellectual Property Office Increases Fees Effective January 1, 2024
As of January 1, 2024, the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO) will be increasing most of its fees by 25%. Filing fees, renewal fees, opposition filing fees, as well as fees for initiating…
Featured Work
-
Mergers and Acquisitions
Apotex Inc. acquires Searchlight Pharma Inc.
Goodmans LLP advised Apotex Inc. in connection with its acquisition of Searchlight Pharma Inc… -
Shareholder Activism
Browning West achieves landmark victory in Gildan Activewear proxy campaign
Goodmans LLP acted for Browning West, LP in the successful reconstitution of Gildan Activewear’s entire board, culminating in the reinstatement of CEO Glenn Chamandy… -
Capital Markets
Dye & Durham’s defence of requisition from Engine Capital
Goodmans LLP is acting for the board of Dye & Durham in connection with a defence of requisition from Engine Capital… -
Capital Markets
Board of WonderFi Technologies Inc.’s proxy defense from KAOS Capital and Mogo
Goodmans LLP is acting for the special committee of the board of WonderFi Technologies Inc in connection with its defense of a proxy contest launched by KAOS Capital and MOGO. KAOS Capital is a… -
Restructuring
LoyaltyOne cross-border restructuring
Goodmans LLP is counsel to KSV Restructuring Inc. in its capacity as court-appointed monitor of LoyaltyOne, Co. in its restructuring proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act before… -
Mergers and Acquisitions
Coinsquare, WonderFi and CoinSmart close business combination
Goodmans LLP acted for Coinsquare Ltd. in its business combination transaction with WonderFi Technologies Inc. and CoinSmart Financial Inc…
News & Events
-
Litigation and Dispute Resolution
Goodmans Welcomes Julia Martschenko
Goodmans is pleased to announce Julia Martschenko has joined the firm as an associate in the Dispute Resolution Group. Julia will be a terrific addition to our firm.We warmly welcome Julia to… -
Litigation and Dispute Resolution
Goodmans Awarded at the 2024 Benchmark Canada Awards
For the second time in as many months, Goodmans Intellectual Property Group has won multiple awards. We are delighted to share Goodmans has been honoured with two distinguished awards at the… -
Litigation and Dispute Resolution
Goodmans Recognized in the 2024 edition of Benchmark Litigation Canada
We are proud to announce that we have once again been recognized in the 2024 edition of Benchmark Litigation Canada.16 Goodmans lawyers have been recognized as being the country’s most…