Irving Mitchell Kalichman s.e.n.c.r.l.
En matière d'oppression, les tribunaux canadiens disposent de larges pouvoirs pour sanctionner ce qu'ils considèrent comme étant une conduite fautive. Comme le souligne l'Honorable juge Louis J. Gouin dans Klotia c. Singh (2012 QCCS 6), ces pouvoirs incluent ceux de destituer des administrateurs et dirigeants et forcer un actionnaire à vendre ses actions dans la société.
Dans cette affaire, le Demandeur intente un recours en oppression contre les Défendeurs, lesquels occupent des postes d'administrateurs et de dirigeants dans la compagnie. Un des Défendeurs est également actionnaire de la compagnie.
Le Demandeur allègue que les Défendeurs se sont complètement désintéressés de la compagnie et qu'ils n'agissent que dans leur intérêt personnel, sans égard pour le bien-être de la compagnie. Il demande donc la destitution des Défendeurs à titre d'administrateurs et dirigeants et le rachat forcé des actions qu'ils détiennent.
Les Défendeurs ne se présentent pas à l'audition, de sorte que le Demandeur procède par défaut. Le juge Gouin, analysant la preuve abondante, en vient à la conclusion que le comportement des Défendeurs est manifestement oppressif et que les ordonnances recherchées sont justifiées:
 The Court retains from the proof, inter alia, the following :
a. notwithstanding numerous requests, Klotia has been kept in the dark by Singh and Estrada as to Arc-en-Ciel's operations and business;
b. Klotia was required by Singh and Estrada to provide additional funding, despite the fact that they refused to give any financial information to him with respect to Arc-en-Ciel's affairs;
c.. cheques have been issued by Singh and Estrada on the account of Arc-en-Ciel with no supporting documents and for non-business purposes, including to repay alleged loans from relative or friends, and to pay for their personal expenses, including the rent of the Registered Office used as their residence;
d. individuals were paid as employees of Arc-en-Ciel, but they did not provide any services or work; and Singh and some of his friends have used, for their personal benefit, Arc-en-Ciel's diesel reserve;
e. the Farm is not insured because no insurance company is prepared to provide coverage in the present circumstances;
f. Singh and Estrada have shown no interest in the success of Arc-en-Ciel's business. They are often absent from the country or unavailable for meetings, and their failure to act as prudent administrators, including in maintaining Arc-en-Ciel's good standing with the Union des producteurs agricoles and the Ministère, and in delaying payments to suppliers and to the Caisse, have caused serious prejudice to Arc-en-Ciel and its creditors, and to Klotia as a shareholder.
 If this is not behaviour which is oppressive or unfairly prejudicial to Klotia, what would be?
 The Court concludes that Klotia is entitled to one or more of the remedies provided under sections 451 and 452 of the BCA.
 As can be seen from those two sections, the Court has very broad discretionary powers in applying remedies under the BCA.
 The Court is of the opinion that Singh and Estrada have shown no interest in maintaining their status, either as a shareholder (for Singh), directors or officers of Arc-en-Ciel, while Klotia is very concerned in protecting his interests and those of Arc-en-Ciel's stakeholders.
 Moreover, Singh and Estrada have had no communication with either Klotia, Dulude or Arc-en-Ciel. Their legal counsel have, on two occasions, ceased representing them, and they have failed to appoint a new attorney. They did not appear at the hearing before this Court.
Le texte intégral du jugement est disponible ici: http://bit.ly/wGTPpq In these circumstances, it is appropriate to remove Singh and Estrada as directors and officers of Arc-en-Ciel, and to order the sale of Singh's shares in Arc-en-Ciel's share capital to Klotia pursuant to sections 451(6) and 452 of the BCA.
Référence neutre:  CRL 16