压迫还是衍生?通过对直接伤害的要求提高清晰度

IF 0.3 Q3 LAW ALBERTA LAW REVIEW Pub Date : 2020-03-17 DOI:10.29173/alr2596
Jordon Magico
{"title":"压迫还是衍生?通过对直接伤害的要求提高清晰度","authors":"Jordon Magico","doi":"10.29173/alr2596","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this article, the author seeks to discern the limits of the broadly scoped oppression action. The author first discusses the oppression and derivative actions and their purposes, and then argues that the oppression provision does not embrace derivative harm. Using the recent Supreme Court of Canada decision in Brunette, the author reinforces the requirement of direct injury distinct from that suffered by the corporation, when bringing a personal action. The author then examines case law in pursuit of clarity about what constitutes direct harm and whether it is difficult to demonstrate. The author concludes by recommending that the Supreme Court clarify the distinction between oppression and derivative actions by integrating the direct harm requirement into the test for oppression.","PeriodicalId":54047,"journal":{"name":"ALBERTA LAW REVIEW","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Oppression or Derivative? Greater Clarity Through the Requirement for Direct Harm\",\"authors\":\"Jordon Magico\",\"doi\":\"10.29173/alr2596\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In this article, the author seeks to discern the limits of the broadly scoped oppression action. The author first discusses the oppression and derivative actions and their purposes, and then argues that the oppression provision does not embrace derivative harm. Using the recent Supreme Court of Canada decision in Brunette, the author reinforces the requirement of direct injury distinct from that suffered by the corporation, when bringing a personal action. The author then examines case law in pursuit of clarity about what constitutes direct harm and whether it is difficult to demonstrate. The author concludes by recommending that the Supreme Court clarify the distinction between oppression and derivative actions by integrating the direct harm requirement into the test for oppression.\",\"PeriodicalId\":54047,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ALBERTA LAW REVIEW\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-03-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ALBERTA LAW REVIEW\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.29173/alr2596\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ALBERTA LAW REVIEW","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.29173/alr2596","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在这篇文章中,作者试图辨别范围广泛的压迫行动的局限性。作者首先讨论了压迫和衍生行为及其目的,然后认为压迫条款不包含衍生伤害。提交人利用加拿大最高法院最近在Brunette案中的裁决,强化了在提起个人诉讼时与公司遭受的直接伤害不同的直接伤害的要求。然后,提交人审查了判例法,以明确什么构成直接伤害以及是否难以证明。最后,提交人建议最高法院通过将直接伤害要求纳入压迫测试,澄清压迫和衍生行为之间的区别。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Oppression or Derivative? Greater Clarity Through the Requirement for Direct Harm
In this article, the author seeks to discern the limits of the broadly scoped oppression action. The author first discusses the oppression and derivative actions and their purposes, and then argues that the oppression provision does not embrace derivative harm. Using the recent Supreme Court of Canada decision in Brunette, the author reinforces the requirement of direct injury distinct from that suffered by the corporation, when bringing a personal action. The author then examines case law in pursuit of clarity about what constitutes direct harm and whether it is difficult to demonstrate. The author concludes by recommending that the Supreme Court clarify the distinction between oppression and derivative actions by integrating the direct harm requirement into the test for oppression.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
20.00%
发文量
2
期刊最新文献
Canadian Challenges in Implementing the Kyoto Protocol: A Cause for Harmonization Principles of Kyoto and Emissions Trading Systems: A Primer for Energy Lawyers Fundamental Aspects of Oil and Gas Revisited Coalbed Methane: Conventional Rules for an Unconventional Resource Recent Regulatory and Legislative Developments of Interest to Oil and Gas Lawyers
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1