Dhillon v Sikh Society Calgary, 2017 ABQB 242

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Dhillon v Sikh Society Calgary, 2017 ABQB 242 Date: 20170404 Docket: 1401 02467 Registry: Calgary Between: Kulwant Dhillon Appellant - and - Sikh Society Calgary Respondent _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of the Honourable Mr. Justice D.B. Nixon _______________________________________________________ Appeal from the Decision by J.B. Hanebury, Master in Chambers Dated the 26 th day of August, 2014 Introduction [ 1 ] The dispute underlying this appeal concerns the development of a shared access road. Mr. Dhillon sought to stay the construction of that road until certain legal arguments were addressed.

Issues [ 2 ] Mr. Dhillon asserts two arguments. First, that the proposed easement project was a “charge” as that term is used in the Sikh Society bylaws. If so, the Sikh Society did not have the authority to take the steps that it did. Second, that the authorizing resolutions are null, void and of no effect because there was not proper compliance with the bylaws. [ 3 ] Before considering either of the issues asserted by Mr. Dhillon, the Court will address a preliminary question. That is, whether it is appropriate for this Court to even consider the issues advanced by the Appellant in these circumstances?

Facts [ 4 ] This matter has been in Court on several occasions. [ 5 ] In February 2014, the Land Planning Committee of the Sikh Society met with the Board of Trustees of that society concerning a common access road. The common access road was to be located off the Old Banff Coach Road in Calgary, Alberta. The common access road was to be shared with an adjacent land owner (the “ Shared Access Road ”). [ 6 ] On or about February 23, 2014, the Emergency General Body Meeting was held at the Sikh Society in Calgary.

At that meeting, a resolution to accept the proposed shared access road was passed (the “ Shared Access Road Resolution ”). Mr. Dhillon was present at this meeting, and he did not object to the resolution. [ 7 ] On March 9, 2014, the Sikh Society Annual General Meeting was held (the “ Sikh Society AGM ”). The Shared Access Road Resolution was passed again at the Sikh Society AGM. The vote was unanimous. Mr. Dhillon was present at the Sikh Society AGM. [ 8 ] Mr. Dylan filed an Originating Application.

He seeks a declaration that the Shared Access Road Resolution was void. [ 9 ] The Originating Application was heard by a Master of the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta in April, 2014. On April 30, 2014, the Master dismissed the application (the “ April 2014 Order ”). [ 10 ] On May 2, 2014, Mr. Dhillon filed another application to stay the ruling of the Master, pending the appeal of this matter (the “ May 2014 Stay Application ”). In the May 2014 Stay Application, Mr.

Dhillon asserted that “[w]ithout a stay of the [April 2014] Order, the appeal would become moot.” [ 11 ] This Court heard the May 2014 Stay Application on or about May 9, 2014. That application was dismissed by an Order dated May 9, 2014. The Order dismissing the May 2014 Stay Application was filed on October 2, 2014. [ 12 ] During the first couple of weeks of May 2014, work on the Shared Access Road was commenced. The Shared Access Road has since been completed. [ 13 ] On cross-examination, Mr. Dhillon confirmed that he owns property in the vicinity of the Sikh Society property.

He removed himself from the Land Planning Committee of the Sikh Society due to a conflict of interest. [ 14 ] The membership that Mr. Dhillon held in the Sikh Society has been revoked. Analysis [ 15 ] For the reasons outlined below, this Court only addressed the issue of whether it was appropriate to consider the arguments advanced by the Appellant. The Law [ 16 ] When there is no longer a live matter in issue, the Court has the discretion to decide not to hear the matter. This discretion can be exercised in the following three circumstances. a.

No Adversarial Parties – If there are no longer parties on opposing sides keen to advocate their positions, a Court will be less inclined to hear the matter. b. Scarce Judicial Resources – If a proceeding will not have any practical effect upon the rights of the parties, it has lost its primary purpose. The parties and the court should not devote scarce resources to it. The concern is judicial economy. However, in rare cases the need to settle uncertain jurisprudence can assume such practical importance that a court may nevertheless exercise its discretion to hear a moot appeal. c.

Exceeding Judicial Role – In some cases, pronouncing law in a moot appeal is tantamount to making law in the abstract. That is a task reserved for the legislative branch of government. It is not a judicial responsibility.

[17] The discretion of a Court in a particular case will be a guided by the facts. The three guidelines mentioned above areinstructive to the Courts: for the underlying authorities, see Borowski v Canada (Attorney General), (SCC), [1989] 1SCR 342 at 358-363; M v H, (SCC), [1999] 2 SCR 3, at paras 43 – 44; and Amgen Canada Inc v Apotex Inc, 2016FCA 196 at para 16, leave to appeal to SCC refused, 2016 CarswellNat 5315. The Application of the Law to the Facts [18] The Court paused to consider matters. In particular, the Court paused on the question that Mr.

Dhillon had in respect ofvalidity of the underlying resolutions because that question is important. Much could be said on this point. [19] Proper governance of any organization requires compliance with its constating documents, which includes the bylaws. Thequestion on the easement may have warranted reflection also, but the Court exercised its discretion and decided not to consider either ofthe arguments considered by Mr. Dhillon. [20] The reason that the Court decided not to consider the arguments of Mr. Dhillon is threefold. [21] First, the issue is moot because the Shared Access Road has been built.

That being the case, any decision in favour of Mr.Dhillon will have no practical effect. The dispute has lost its purpose. [22] In the May 2014 Stay Application, Mr. Dhillon explicitly acknowledged this reality, unless he was granted a stay. He was notsuccessful. The stay was not granted. Consequently, he answered his own question. [23] Second, insofar as a ruling in favour of Mr. Dhillon at this time would have no practical effect, this Court has decided that itwould not be appropriate to devote scarce judicial resources to the matter. [24] Third, the Court notes that Mr.

Dhillon attended both the Emergency General Body Meeting and the Sikh Society AGM.However, the evidence is that he raised no objection at either meeting to the Shared Access Road Resolution. If he wanted to challengethe resolution, he should have voiced a concern at one or both of those meetings. If he had done so, the Court would have taken that intoconsideration in the course of exercising its discretion. He did not. That being the case, it is time to look forward; and not backward. [25] As a final comment, the issue of the revoked membership was raised in argument.

The Court did not consider this issuebecause it was not plead. Conclusion [26] In

summary, this application is dismissed. [27] The parties may speak to costs within 60 days, if required. Heard on the 14th day of January, 2016. Dated at the City of Calgary, Alberta this 4th day of April, 2017. D.B. Nixon J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Ugo Ukpabi for the Appellant Harmon Toor for the Respondent