2023 QCCA 696, 2023 QCCA 696

Association Gurdwara Guru Nanak Darbar Inc. c. Dissident Group Gurdwara Guru Nanak Darbar Inc. 2023 QCCA 696 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No.: 500-09-030482-236 ( 500-17-123358-221 ) MINUTES OF HEARING DATE: May 19, 2023 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE GUY GAGNON, J.A. GENEVIÈVE MARCOTTE, J.A. BENOÎT MOORE, J.A. APPELLANTS COUNSEL Association gurdwara guru nanak darbar inc. bajwa harjeet singh rajinder singh Mtre Bruce Taub ( Group Avocats B.T.L.G. ) Absent Mtre Alan M. Stein Absent RESPONDENT COUNSEL dissident group gurdwara guru nanak darbar inc.

Mtre Marc-James Tacheji ( Fasken Martineau Dumoulin ) By videoconference Mtre MARIE-PIER GAGNON NADEAU ( Fasken Martineau Dumoulin ) Absent On appeal from a judgment rendered on March 8, 2023, by the Honourable Louis J. Gouin of the Superior Court , District of Montreal .

DESCRIPTION: Application to dismiss an appeal and declare the appeal abusive (articles 51, 54 and 365 C.C.P .). Clerk at the hearing : Lesly Ramos Courtroom: Pierre-Basile-Mignault HEARING 9:32 Commencement of the hearing. Continuation of the hearing held on May 15, 2023. The parties were excused from appearing in Court. BY THE COURT: Judgment – see page 3. Conclusion of the hearing. Lesly Ramos, Clerk at the hearing JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The respondent seeks the dismissal of the appeal from a judgment rendered on March 8, 2023, by the Superior Court, District of Montreal (the Honourable Louis J.

Gouin), [1] which revoked an earlier judgment rendered on December 14, 2022, by the Superior Court (the Honourable Louis Charette), [2] and asks that the appeal be declared abusive. [ 2 ] The judgment under appeal revoked the Charette Judgment, which had granted, on an ex parte basis, the application for injunctive relief of appellants Bajwa Harjeet Singh (“Bajwa”) and Rajinder Singh (“Rajinder”) and had ordered the addition of their names on the list of registered members of appellant Association Gurdwara Guru Nanak Darbar Inc. (“the Association”) for the purpose of a vote for the election of its board of directors to be held at the Association’s general annual meeting. [ 3 ] Appellants Bajwa and Rajinder had sought said injunction unbeknownst to the respondent and despite an earlier judgment rendered by Justice Martin F.

Sheehan of the Superior Court (Commercial Division) under a different court number, [3] which judgment provided that only the members whose name appeared on a re-established membership list (“the List”) be allowed to vote, and despite the consent and undertaking of appellants Bajwa and Rajinder to abide by the List. [ 4 ] The application for injunctive relief was heard before Charette, J.S.C. on the day prior to the hearing of the application for directives before the Superior Court (Commercial Division) in anticipation of the aforesaid general annual meeting, said application for directives having been served upon the Association beforehand.

[ 5 ] Nevertheless, during the nine-minute hearing held before Charette, J.S.C., appellants Bajwa and Rajinder did not bring the application for directives to the judge’s attention, nor did they mention the Sheehan Judgment that formed part of the bundle of documents attached to their application for injunctive relief.

Similarly, they failed to reveal the earlier judgments that had led to the determination of the List and the fact that the original membership list had been submitted to the Nuss Committee for its review and that they had consented to abide by and recognize the List. [ 6 ] Unsurprisingly, Gouin, J.S.C. granted the revocation after recognizing that appellants Bajwa and Rajinder, as directors of the Association, had placed themselves in a conflict of interest situation in seeking to add their names to the List from which they had been formally excluded, and after noting that the Charette Judgment caused prejudice to the respondent, i.e. the dissident group of registered members, and impaired the right of the dissident members to participate in the democratic process to elect the board of directors by diluting the votes of legitimate members of the Association with votes of individuals who had been expressly excluded from the List. [ 7 ] While Gouin, J.S.C. granted the revocation, he postponed to a later date the hearing on the applications to declare the appellants’ conduct abusive and quarrelsome and find them in contempt of court. [ 8 ] In the Court’s opinion, absent a declaration of abuse in the judgment under appeal, the respondent’s argument that the appeal was improperly formed because leave was not sought and obtained must fail. [ 9 ] However, the respondent is right in asserting that the appeal is devoid of merit and that the grounds of appeal are bound to fail.

In the judgment under appeal, the judge of first instance did not commit an error of law by deciding the application for revocation in a single step, after citing the matter of A. c. B. [4] [ 10 ] Moreover, in Canadian Royalties inc. c. Mines de nickel Nearctic inc ., [5] this Court recognized the need to adopt a flexible approach to revocation that could entail granting a revocation judgment in a single step rather than imposing a formal two-step process.

Under the circumstances and considering that he had the benefit of the various judgments rendered in the Superior Court (Commercial Division) that led to the determination of the List, which List the appellants had undertaken to abide by, the judge of first instance was justified in intervening as he did in the judgment under appeal so as to revoke the Charette Judgment, while postponing the hearing on the abuse of procedure and contempt of court to a later date. [ 11 ] Although the respondent has successfully demonstrated that the appeal is ill-founded and should be dismissed at this stage, it has failed to show that the appeal itself is abusive.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 12 ] GRANTS the application to dismiss the appeal, with legal costs; [ 13 ] DISMISSES the appeal, with legal costs. GUY GAGNON, J.A. GENEVIÈVE MARCOTTE, J.A. BENOÎT MOORE, J.A.