As established in the Thomas case, it is not necessary for a complainant to report any actual wrongdoing or an invasion of his legal rights or a lack of probity or lack of good faith against the complainant by those in control. The remedy is aimed at behaviors constituting an unfair prejudice to the interests of a member. The most important factor for the courts was the test of injustice, while all the interests of the company must be considered and balanced. Following the Thomas case, courts were granted significant freedom as the scope of the oppression remedy was expanded. The “oppression remedy” now offers shareholders a wide range of remedies for a wide range of behaviors. The type of conduct deemed oppressive includes many cases, including improper exclusion from participation in management or oppressive conduct at corporate meetings, in which the interests of shareholders are unfairly disregarded and they are unable to fully participate in meetings and exercise their functions.