Law360 Canada ( August 8, 2025, 2:43 PM EDT) -- Appeal by the appellant from dismissal of his action alleging oppression under the Business Corporations Act, R.S.Y. 2002 c. 20 (BCA). The appellant brought an action against the respondents alleging oppression. The respondents brought applications to dismiss the action on several grounds, which included a lack of subject matter jurisdiction and territorial jurisdiction over the proceeding, and no viable claim against any of the respondents. The chambers judge dismissed the action on the basis that the Supreme Court of Yukon (the Yukon Court) did not have subject matter jurisdiction because Katanga was not a corporation as defined in the BCA, having been discontinued under the BCA. The appellant argued that the chambers judge erred in her interpretation of the BCA. He stated the Yukon Court did not lose subject matter jurisdiction over oppressive conduct that occurred before a corporation discontinued in Yukon and continued in another jurisdiction. The respondents argued the timing of oppressive conduct did not matter because the Yukon Court had no jurisdiction over companies not incorporated in Yukon. The singular issue was whether the Yukon Court had subject matter jurisdiction to hear an application for an oppression remedy under s. 243 of the Business Corporations Act....