Offices in Ottawa and Perth
(613) 722-1500

CONTACT US (613) 722-1500

Oppression: Divisional Court Upholds Liquidation to Resolve Shareholder Dispute

Oppression: Divisional Court Upholds Liquidation to Resolve Shareholder Dispute


Mann Lawyers

Posted March 6, 2018

Basegmez v. Akman, 2018 ONSC 812

Recently, the Divisional Court upheld a decision by Lederman J., whereby the court ordered the liquidation of a closely held corporation after finding that one of the shareholders acted oppressively;  in other words, in a manner that was unfairly prejudicial to the other shareholders.

Tarn Financial Corporation was founded by three investing shareholders, Akman, Kocturk and Basemez, for the purpose of investing in an operating hotel and condominium development project. Lederman J. found that soon after receiving the investment funds, the managing shareholder, Akman, altered the capital structure of the corporation to give himself voting control and engaged in self-dealing, thereby diverting millions in corporate funds for his personal benefit. Lederman J. found Akman’s conduct to indicate an intention to operate the company without any regard to the interests of the other shareholders or his statutory obligations.

Importantly, Lederman J. was presented only with a request for winding up as no other remedy had been sought by any party. Although Lederman J. provided the parties with an opportunity to discuss alternatives to winding up, no agreement was reached and Lederman J. was of the view that there would be no way for the oppressed shareholders to fairly assess the value of the company given that they had no access to the requisite financial information of the corporation.

Lederman J. recognized that winding up is a drastic remedy but found it appropriate given that i) there was a complete breakdown in trust and confidence between Akman and the other shareholders, ii) the oppressed shareholders were not in a position to properly value the company in light of Akman’s failure to provide financial disclosure, and iii) the oppressed shareholders had no desire to take over management of the company.  Lederman J. found that there was no less disruptive order appropriate in the circumstances, and ordered the winding up of the company.

On appeal to the Divisional Court, the court upheld Lederman J.’s findings. Speaking for the court, Myers J. noted that it was appropriate for Lederman J. to have removed Akman from management and control of the business pending the separation of the parties, given Lederman J.’s finding that Akman intended to continue to ignore the rights and interests of the oppressed shareholders.

Myers J. also highlighted the fact that no party had put forward an alternative remedial option and that Lederman J. was left with maintaining the status quo (which was clearly not appropriate in the circumstances) or ordering the winding up of the company.  On that basis, the Divisional Court found Lederman J.’s decision to be sound.

There are a number of important takeaways from this decision.  First, if a party to an oppression claim prefers one remedial option over another (i.e. forced buyout, independent valuation, etc.) then the preferred remedial option should be formally requested.  This is particularly so if, like Akman, the party is on the wrong side of the equities.

Second, at paragraph 25 of Myers J.’s decision, the Divisional Court noted that “A compulsory sale can only ensure that fair market value is realized where there is confidence in the underlying financial statements. This requires that a third party review the current financial statements and conduct an investigation to reconcile the various inter-corporate transfers and loans implemented by Mr. Akman.”  This should be a warning to any oppressing shareholder that courts are prepared to take drastic steps to ensure that a fair result is available to oppressed shareholders.

Finally,  the Divisional Court recognized once again that “a closely held corporation can often be analogized to a partnership that requires trust and confidence among the investors.

Superior Court – Basegmez v. Akman, 2017 ONSC 5370 (CanLII)

Divisional Court – Basegmez v. Akman, 2018 ONSC 812 (CanLII)

This blog post was written by Chris McLeod, head of the Litigation team.  He can be reached at 613-367-0372 or at

More Resources

Blog |
Employment, Labour, and Human Rights, Commercial Litigation


Posted May 23, 2023

Both in my commercial and employment litigation practice, I encounter Ontario business owners faced with serious charges laid against them under the Provincial Offences Act[...]
Blog |
Family Law


Posted May 18, 2023

The recent Supreme Court of Canada decision in Anderson v. Anderson, 2023 SCC 13, provides guidance on domestic contracts and the enforceability of an informal[...]
Blog |
Environmental Law


Posted May 16, 2023

When many people think of contaminated sites, they think of the usual suspects such as industrial properties and gas stations.  They may not think of[...]
Blog |
Business Law


Posted May 9, 2023

Often business owners reach a point where they are considering the sale of their business either through the sale of shares or the sale of[...]
Blog |
Family Law


Posted May 2, 2023

Overview of Tort Claims in Family Matters Tort claims can be made in family law matters, so as to prevent a multiplicity of proceedings and[...]
Blog |
Employment, Labour, and Human Rights


Posted April 25, 2023

In a case that recently was decided from the Court of Appeal of Ontario called Celestini v Shoplogix Inc., 2023 ONCA 131, the Court had[...]

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

"*" indicates required fields

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.