Fear not, the Canadian Law is on our side. 

The dominant viewpoint of Canadian judges, however, is that the oppression remedy should be interpreted broadly.29 Most judges accept that their role with respect to the oppression remedy is to judge upon the fairness of the actions of management and the majority of shareholders in order to protect the minority from unfair treatment.30

29.           Sparling v. Javelin Int'! Ltd., [1986) R.J.Q. 1073, 1077-78; Mason v. Inter­ city Properties, 37 B.L.R. 6, 12, 29 (Ont. C.A. 1987); Re Ferguson and Imax Systems Corp., 43 O.R.2d 128, 137 (Ont. C.A. 1983); Chrysler Canada Ltd. v. Richmond Plymouth (B.C.S.C. 1988){unreported); Re Peterson and Kanata Investments Ltd., 60 D.L.R.3d 527, 542 (B.C.S.C. 1975); Re Bury, 12 D.L.R.4th  451,  453  (Ont.  H.C. 1985); Re Abraham and Inter Wide Invs. Ltd., 20 D.L.R.4th 267, 275 (Ont. H.C.).
30.           Journet v. Superchef, 29 B.L.R. 206, 223 (Que. S.C. 1984); Diligenti v. RWMD Operations, 1 B.C.L.R. 36 (B.C.S.C. 1976); Re Little Billy's Restaurant, 45B.C.L.R. 388 (B.C.S.C. 1983); O'Neill v. Dunsmuir Holdings (B.C.S.C. 1980) {unre­ ported); Johnston v. West Fraser Timber Co., 17 B.L.R. 16, 71-72 (B.C.S.C. 1981), rev'd, 133 D.L.R.3d 77 (B.C.C.A. 1982) (but discussion of basic purpose of oppression remedy approved).