Facts: The dispute centers on the ownership and management of airG Inc., a successful corporation co-owned by Yen and Ghahramani. Allegations of oppressive actions and misappropriation of company assets led to litigation.
Issues: The appeal challenged the lower court's dismissal of an application to amend pleadings to claim oppression due to airG's partiality in litigation and misappropriation of assets by Ghahramani, contrary to his fiduciary duty.
Ruling: The appeal was allowed. The court recognized principles of neutrality and legal costs in oppression actions but noted the corporation's autonomy in litigation stance. It found potential for oppression in airG's litigation conduct and Ghahramani's actions.
Key Points:
The principle of neutrality and the legal costs principle supported the appeal, underlining that a corporation in an oppression action should not fund one side's legal fees.
The court highlighted a conflict in airG's litigation conduct, instructed by Ghahramani, against the backdrop of a shareholders' dispute.
Amendments to the plaintiffs' pleadings were allowed, recognizing the potential oppression from airG's litigation conduct and asset misappropriation by Ghahramani.
