Corporate governance and the judicial license to tailor a remedy for oppression : the oppression remedy in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the most important issues that arise under the statutory oppression remedy is the manner in which a court will use its wide powers to order relief once oppression has been found. Guidelines according to which courts will exercise their discretion become even more desirable where a remedy may impact on the governance structures of the corporation. There is an extensive body of case law under the oppression remedy, most of which tends to relegate the exercise of the remedy to the facts of a case. However, from a study of the case law, two principles appear with varying frequency depending on the size of the corporation. These are principles which may be asserted under the oppression remedy. The first principle states that the majority may not exercise its electoral rights to the prejudice of the minority. It flows from the relationship between members of a corporation and arises most frequently at closely held corporations. The second principle is against abuse of fiduciary position, which entails a duty on directors and senior management to protect the interests of all shareholders. Abuse of fiduciary position may also involve instances where there is a breach of fiduciary duties to the corporation. This second principle is more prevalent at widely held corporations. The remedy will be tailored according to the principle under which liability was found.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".