Legally Speaking - August 2008 (422)
News and Publications » Publications » Legally Speaking » Legally Speaking - August 2008 (422)
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Search Legally Speaking:
Legally Speaking (422, August 2008)

 

Number 422, August 2008

Brokerage Uses Oppression Remedy to Collect Commission

An Ontario brokerage recently used a modern corporate remedy to collect its commissions, when the principal of a corporate seller stripped virtually all the assets out of the company, leaving the seller an empty shell with no money.1

Some legal background is useful. Statutes require directors to make reasonable business decisions in light of all the circumstances known by the directors, or about which they ought to have known.2Sometimes, directors must consider the impact of their actions on a company’s creditors.3

Depending on circumstances, the legislation also permits certain persons to ask a court for a remedy when the affairs of a company, or the powers of the directors, are used in a way that is oppressive. To remedy oppression, the court may order a director to pay compensation.4

In Remo Valente Real Estate (1990) Ltd. v. Portofino Riverside Tower Inc., four businessmen incorporated a company (the “Development Company”) to build a large condominium project. All four were principals of the Development Company. One of the four owned a real estate brokerage. He arranged for the sale of the property to the Development Company. As part of the deal, everyone agreed the brokerage would be the exclusive agent for the sale of all the condos in the project. The Development Company also signed an exclusive listing agreement with the brokerage.

When relations within the group broke down, one of the principals bought out the others and took over sole control of the Development Company. As the Development Company’s sole director and shareholder, he then reorganized the company, effectively transferring the property to other entities. This left the Development Company an empty shell, without money to pay the brokerage’s commissions. The principal also caused the Development Company to terminate the brokerage’s listing and change the sales office locks.

The brokerage successfully sued the Development Company, its sole principal and several related entities. In part, the brokerage sued, as a creditor of the Development Company, for an oppression remedy.5

In the court’s view, the principal reorganized the Development Company to prevent the brokerage from collecting its past and future commissions. The reorganization disregarded the interests of the brokerage, as a creditor of the Development Company.6  The court ordered the principal, the Development Company and several related entities, jointly and severally, to pay the brokerage’s commissions, past and future, with interest and apparently court costs. This made the principal personally liable to pay the commissions owed by his Development Company.

In Ontario, the oppression remedy is available to a shareholder, and to “any other person who, in the discretion of the court, is a proper person to make an application.”7 BC’s Business Corporations Act uses similar wording, though the BC courts haven’t yet decided whether a creditor of a company may sue its directors for an oppression remedy. Nevertheless, an oppression remedy in a similar situation should be considered. Even better, when listing with a corporate seller, a brokerage can strengthen its ability to later collect commission by also getting a written promise from the company’s principal(s) to personally guarantee the performance of their company’s obligations to the brokerage.

Mike Mangan
B.A., LL.B.

  1. Remo Valente Real Estate (1990) Ltd. v. Portofino Riverside Tower Inc. (2007), 86 O.R. (3d) 667 (decision on liability); [2008] O.J. NO. 1887 (decision on amount of compensation) (Ont. SCJ). Herein “Remo (2007) or (2008)”.
  2. Canada Business Corporations Act, R.S.C. 1885, c. C-44, ss. 134(1)(b) and s. 241(3)(h),(j) (CBCA); [Ontario] Business Corporations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. B-16, s. 134(1)(b) and s. 248(3)(h),(j) (OBCA); [British Columbia] Business Corporations Act, S.B.C. 2002, c. 57, s. 142(1)(b) and 227(3)(j),(m) (BCBCA).
  3. Peoples Department Stores Inc. (Trustee of) v. Wise, 2004 SCC 68.
  4. See, for e.g.; CBCA, s. 241(3)(h),(j); OBCA, s. 248(3)(h),(j); BCBCA, s. 227(3)(j),(m).
  5. OBCA, s. 247.
  6. Remo (2007), 86 O.R. (3d) 667 at para. 77 (Ont. SCJ).
  7. OBCA, ss. 245 and 247.

Note: The www.mls.ca website (changed to www.REALTOR.ca as of July 2, 2008) is an advertising vehicle provided by REALTORS® across Canada to help market properties. It is not an MLS® system.
Back issues of Legally Speaking are available to REALTORS® on BCREA's REALTOR Link® homepage. Subscribers who are not REALTORS®, and who wish to see back issues, should contact BCREA by email at [email protected], or by phone at 604.742.2784.
Legally Speaking is published monthly by email and bimonthly in print by the British Columbia Real Estate Association, and funded in part by The Real Estate Foundation of British Columbia. Real estate boards, real estate associations and REALTORS® may reprint this content, provided that credit is given to BCREA by including the following statement: "Copyright British Columbia Real Estate Association. Reprinted with permission." BCREA makes no guarantees as to the accuracy or completeness of this information.
Copyright © British Columbia Real Estate Association
1420 – 701 Georgia Street West
PO Box 10123, Pacific Centre
Vancouver, BC  V7Y 1C6
Phone 604.683.7702
Fax 604.683.8601
www.bcrea.bc.ca
[email protected]
To change your email address or subscribe to more BCREA publications, click here.