As long as the assignment of a claim doesn’t ‘savour of maintenance’ (officious intermeddling in someone else’s lawsuit) it will be OK.

This includes the assignment of an oppression claim, as in Ma v Ma, 2012 ONCA 408. In that case the Ontario Court of Appeal looked at the transaction as a whole, concluding that the assignment of a shareholder’s oppression claim was valid because it was ancillary to a property right in the shares of the company, which had also been assigned, and was not a separate cause of action. The fact that the assignee paid $1 for the right of action reflected the risk of oppression litigation and the value of the shares if that proved unsuccessful. The assignment would also have been upheld if the assignee had had a genuine pre-existing commercial interest in taking the assignment and enforcing it, which wasn’t the case on the facts.

[Link available here].