Le test en deux étapes du recours en oppression

par Karim Renno
Renno Vathilakis Inc.

Malgré son existence depuis plusieurs années, le recours en oppression (et son fonctionnement) demeure généralement méconnu. Cela s'explique tant par le fait qu'il s'agit d'un recours spécialisé et que la loi habilitante (que ce soit la loi fédérale ou provinciale) est particulièrement avare de détails. C'est pourquoi il est utile de discuter du jugement récent de l'Honorable juge Patrick Buchholz dans Bodiam Financial Inc. c. Desjardins Securities Inc. (2020 QCCS 1076), où le test en deux étapes en matière d'oppression est clairement présenté.

Dans cette affaire, la Demanderesse réclame une somme de plus de 27M$ dans le cadre d'un recours en oppression. Elle allègue que les affaires de la Mise en cause - une co-entreprise - ont été menées de manière contraire à ses attentes légitimes.

Pour nos fins, la trame factuelle importe peu. On retiendra simplement que la Demanderesse allègue que la gestion des affaire de la Mise en cause par la Défenderesse a contrevenu à ses attentes raisonnables et qu'elle était en droit de recevoir des dividendes et des opportunités d'affaires. La Demanderesse plaide que l'absence de profits au sein de la Mise en cause est le résultat de cette gestion déficiente de la part de la Défenderesse.

Saisi de l'affaire, le juge Buchholz rappelle quel est le test en deux étapes qui s'applique en matière d'oppression:

[87] An inquiry as to whether an order should be made under section 241 CBCA requires (1) establishing a breach of the legitimate expectations of the stakeholder in question; and (2) establishing that the conduct complained of amounts to “oppression”, “unfair prejudice” or “unfair disregard” of the interests of that stakeholder. 

[88] A determination of a stakeholder’s reasonable expectations is necessarily a fact-specific exercise that depends both on the nature of the stakeholder and the nature of the relationship between the stakeholder and the company or the other stakeholder:

[61] Lord Wilberforce spoke of the equitable remedy in terms of the “rights, expectations and obligations” of individuals. “Rights” and “obligations” connote interests enforceable at law without recourse to special remedies, for example, through a contractual suit or a derivative action under s. 239 of the CBCA. It is left for the oppression remedy to deal with the “expectations” of affected stakeholders. The reasonable expectations of these stakeholders is the cornerstone of the oppression remedy. 

[62] As denoted by “reasonable”, the concept of reasonable expectations is objective and contextual. The actual expectation of a particular stakeholder is not conclusive. In the context of whether it would be “just and equitable” to grant a remedy, the question is whether the expectation is reasonable having regard to the facts of the specific case, the relationships at issue, and the entire context, including the fact that there may be conflicting claims and expectations. 

[63] Particular circumstances give rise to particular expectations. Stakeholders enter into relationships, with and within corporations, on the basis of understandings and expectations, upon which they are entitled to rely, provided they are reasonable in the context. These expectations are what the remedy of oppression seeks to uphold. 

[64] Determining whether a particular expectation is reasonable is complicated by the fact that the interests and expectations of different stakeholders may conflict. The oppression remedy recognizes that a corporation is an entity that encompasses and affects various individuals and groups, some of whose interests may conflict with others. Directors or other corporate actors may make corporate decisions or seek to resolve conflicts in a way that abusively or unfairly maximizes a particular group’s interest at the expense of other stakeholders. The corporation and shareholders are entitled to maximize profit and share value, to be sure, but not by treating individual stakeholders unfairly. Fair treatment — the central theme running through the oppression jurisprudence — is most fundamentally what stakeholders are entitled to “reasonably expect”.

[89] Regarding the second prong of oppression remedy, the Supreme Court of Canada adds that “[e]ven if reasonable, not every unmet expectation gives rise to a claim under s. 241”:

The section requires that the conduct complained of amount to “oppression”, “unfair prejudice” or “unfair disregard” of relevant interests. “Oppression” carries the sense of conduct that is coercive and abusive, and suggests bad faith. “Unfair prejudice” may admit of a less culpable state of mind, that nevertheless has unfair consequences. Finally, “unfair disregard” of interests extends the remedy to ignoring an interest as being of no importance, contrary to the stakeholders’ reasonable expectations.

[90] Applying the facts in this case to the law as stated: what were Bodiam’s reasonable expectations at the creation of and during the JV relationship with DSI, and was DSI’s conduct oppressive or otherwise unfairly prejudicial or disregarding of Bodiam’s reasonable expectations?

Référence : [2020] ABD 131