It already owned the business. A judge saw a 'scent of tactics' in what came next.
A creditor that seized a cannabis-based drug developer through insolvency cannot now add its former directors to an oppression claim, a BC court ruled.
The Supreme Court of British Columbia refused the application on July 16, 2026, finding it would not be just and convenient to bring the proposed respondents into the case.
SHP Capital, LLC, a senior secured creditor and would-be investor in Medipure Holdings Inc., filed the original petition on April 5, 2022. It alleged Medipure's affairs were run in a way that was oppressive to SHP and asked the court, among other things, to order the company to repay money SHP had put in for shares it never received.
Those payments were substantial. Under two stock purchase agreements dated July 16, 2021, SHP agreed to buy 5.5 million shares for US$8.35 million, paying US$5.1 million to Medipure and US$3.3 million to a major shareholder. No shares were issued because a securities regulator's cease trade order was in effect. SHP later lent Medipure money as well, raising the loan to US$11 million by March 2022.
Rather than press the petition, SHP switched to insolvency proceedings. Medipure's restructuring failed, and in October 2022 an SHP affiliate bought most of the company's assets out of a liquidation. SHP now controls the business.
After spending two years reviewing Medipure's records, SHP filed an amended petition in December 2024 and, on June 19, 2025, applied to add five individuals - mostly former directors - as respondents. The new claim went beyond the original demand for the share money: SHP also sought repayment of its unpaid loans, with interest.
Three of the proposed respondents opposed the move. Two others did not respond. Several of the originally named parties were no longer reachable - two Medipure companies and one director had gone bankrupt, and another director had died with no substantial estate. One remaining director did not oppose the application.
Justice Milman applied a two-part test. He accepted that SHP's new claims were real rather than frivolous, clearing the first hurdle. But he found the second unmet. The delay, he held, was lengthy, inordinate, and inadequately explained, since SHP knew the relevant facts back in 2022. He also found the claim had changed character - from stabilising the company's governance to chasing damages - now that SHP already owned the business.
The judge pointed to the "scent of tactics." With no deep pockets left among the existing respondents, he said, SHP was casting the net more widely. He refused the application and awarded costs to the respondents who fought it.
For private lenders, distressed-debt buyers, and directors, the message is plain. Oppression claims must be pursued promptly, and a creditor cannot park a case for years, recover through other routes, then reopen it to reach directors personally.
