2023 QCCA 1394, 2023 QCCA 1394

Singh c. Association Gurdwara Guru Nanak Darbar inc. 2023 QCCA 1394 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No.: 500-09-030661-235 ( 500-11-060211-212 ) MINUTES OF HEARING DATE: October 24, 2023 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE YVES-MARIE MORISSETTE, J.A. PATRICK HEALY, J.A. SOPHIE LAVALLÉE, J.A. APPELLANT COUNSEL TARLOCHAN SINGH Mtre MICHAEL N. BERGMAN Mtre MAELY ALMACHE RENNA ( Bergman & Associé

s) Absents RESPONDENTS COUNSEL ASSOCIATION GURDWARA GURU NANAK DARBAR INC. ABSENT AND UNREPRESENTED The dissident group of registered members of the gurdwara guru nanak DARBAR INC. Mtre MARC-JAMES TACHEJI Mtre CAMILLE DUGUAY ( Fasken Martineau DuMoulin ) Absents IMPLEADED PARTIES COUNSEL CHARANGIT SINGH ABSENT AND UNREPRESENTED

GURINDER SINGH JOHAL RICHARD GAUTHIER ABSENTS AND UNREPRESENTED On appeal from a judgment rendered on July 6, 2023, by the Honourable David R. Collier of the Superior Court , District of Montreal . DESCRIPTION: Application for leave to appeal de bene esse . (Articles 30, 31 and 363 C.C.P. ) Application of The dissident group of registered members of the Gurdwara Guru Nanak Darbar inc. to dismiss the appeal. (Article 365 C.C.P. ) Clerk at the hearing : René Gutknecht Courtroom: Pierre-Basile-Mignault HEARING Continuation of the hearing held on October 23, 2023. Counsel were excused from appearing in Court.

BY THE COURT: Judgment – see page 4. René Gutknecht, Clerk at the hearing JUDGMENT [ 1 ] On July 6, 2023, Justice Collier of the Superior Court, District of Montreal, had before him an “application for directives and a safeguard order” by one Tarlochan Singh and a “voluntary aggressive intervention” by six named individuals.

Both the application and the intervention were dismissed from the bench that same day. [ 2 ] There is now before this Court a motion or petition to bring a late application to appeal de bene esse from the judgment of July 6, the petitioner being Tarlochan Singh and the respondents a group identified throughout the prior proceedings between these and related or other parties as “the Dissident Group”.

Also before the Court is a motion or petition by the Dissident Group to dismiss the appeal filed by Tarlochan Singh against the judgment of July 6. [ 3 ] Should leave be granted, and should the appeal be ultimately successful, the petitioner Tarlochan Singh would “be allowed to make voluntary intervention”, as indicated in the conclusion of his motion, and would presumably raise in some form or another arguments not dissimilar from those which afforded the basis of his “application for directives and a safeguard order” of July 6.

In all likelihood, the object would be to depart from the course of action contemplated in the judgment of July 6 and in earlier rulings by the same court. [ 4 ] Twice already, the Superior Court issued such directives. It did so, explicitly, when Justice Sheehan on October 21, 2022 [1] , set out detailed mandatory guidelines for the election of a new board of the co-respondent, the Association Gurdwara Guru Nanak Darbar (the “Association”). Events thereafter took place which led to a judgment of December 14, 2022, (

i) varying the guidelines set out by

Justice Sheehan in his judgment of July 6, as well as (ii) granting a new safeguard order. [ 5 ] This judgment of December 14, having been obtained under conditions calculated to mislead the Court, was later revoked by Justice Gouin in a judgment of March 8, 2023 [2] .

In this last judgment, Justice Gouin revisited Justice Sheehan’s orders of October 21; he set out a new list of mandatory guidelines in further pursuance of Justice Sheehan’s latter judgment, with a view to assisting in the orderly conduct of the election and replacement of the Association’s board. [ 6 ] The judgment of Justice Gouin was confirmed by the Court of Appeal in a judgment of May 19, 2023 [3] , granting a motion to dismiss an appeal against the judgment of March 8 filed by the Association and several named individuals. [ 7 ] At this stage, this last judgment must now be executed in strict accordance with its terms, allowance being made for parallel compliance with the safeguard order issued on April 14, 2023, by Justice Collier and renewed by him in the subsequent judgment of July 6. [ 8 ] If, as the petitioner contends, the procedure heard by Justice Collier on July 6 is more accurately characterized as an application for judicial review governed by art. 34 and 520 C.C.P. , Justice Collier had jurisdiction on that day to decline discretionarily to grant the relief sought.

Again, at this stage of the proceedings, it would be inappropriate for this Court to interfere with what was in the particular and highly unusual circumstances of this case a proper exercise of the discretion vested in the Superior Court. Paragraphs 6, 9 and 10 of Justice Collier’s reasons for judgment of July 6 amply justify this outcome, whether or not the case is governed by art. 34 C.C.P. [ 9 ] Several issues are no longer debatable in the Superior Court or in this Court, namely issues of when the election was to take place, of who could vote and of how the election was to proceed.

These issues have now and for quite some time been resolved by a final judgment [4] which must be fully complied with. FOR THESE REASONS , THE COURT: [ 10 ] GRANTS the motion to dismiss the appeal; [ 11 ] DISMISSES the motion or petition to bring a late application to appeal de bene esse from Justice Collier’s judgment of July 6; [ 12 ] THE WHOLE with costs. YVES-MARIE MORISSETTE, J.A. PATRICK HEALY, J.A. SOPHIE LAVALLÉE, J.A.