What categories of conduct does the oppression remedy apply?

While there are no fixed categories of qualifying conduct that attract the application of the oppression remedy, Arthur v. Signum Communications Ltd.[54] described categories of conduct that could be considered oppressive: (1) lack of a valid corporate purpose for the transaction; (2) failure on the part of the corporation and its controlling shareholders to take reasonable steps to simulate an arm’s length transaction; (3) lack of good faith on the part of the directors of the corporation; (4) discrimination between shareholders with the effect of benefiting the majority shareholder to the exclusion or to the detriment of the minority shareholder; (5) lack of adequate and appropriate disclosure of material information to the minority shareholder; and (6) a plan or design to eliminate the minority shareholder.