As described by Blair J. (as he then was) in Naneff v. ConCrete Holdings Ltd. (1993), 11 B.L.R. (2d) 218, in normal circumstances, the wrongful dismissal of an employee would not provide the plaintiff with standing to seek an oppression remedy. It is only where the interests of the employee are integrally intertwined with his interests as a shareholder, officer and director and where the dismissal was part of a pattern of conduct designed to exclude the plaintiff from any active role in the business that the dismissal could properly be considered as an act of oppression.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.