When the individual behind the numbered holding company first launched proceedings against the publicly traded mining firm headquartered in Victoria, British Columbia, the pleadings named not only the corporation itself but also several of its directors as respondents to the oppression application. By 2025, with 5 separate court proceedings spanning 2 provinces now trailing the litigation, those directors found themselves in an uncomfortable position: they were being asked to answer personally for alleged conduct that occurred in their capacity as fiduciaries of the corporation, while simultaneously seeking the corporation's resources to fund their defence. The British Columbia Supreme Court judge presiding over the applications to strike the oppression and conspiracy claims as abuse of process had to consider not merely whether the litigation should continue against the corporate respondent, but whether the individual directors were properly before the court at all and, if so, what the consequences of their potential personal liability might be. This intersection of fiduciary duty, oppression remedy mechanics, and corporate indemnification creates one of the more legally intricate aspects of shareholder disputes, requiring careful analysis of how British Columbia's corporate statute treats the individuals who govern a corporation when a complainant seeks to hold them accountable for allegedly unfair conduct.