Bhupinder Nagra

Following a five‑day hybrid trial concerning governance disputes within a religious corporation, the court had previously set aside the admission of new members, the election of directors, and the appointment of officers, and imposed conditions for a court‑ordered members’ meeting under s. 297 of the Corporations Act.

The parties subsequently made competing claims for costs.

Applying Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the principles from appellate authorities on proportionality and fairness, the court assessed the degree of success and the parties’ conduct.

The judge found that both factions contributed to the corporate dysfunction that generated the litigation and unnecessarily prolonged the trial.

Concluding that neither side could properly be regarded as successful, the court declined to award costs.

Members of a Sikh temple incorporated under the Ontario Corporations Act brought an action challenging the admission of 23 new members and the election of directors following a disputed board meeting and special members’ meeting.

The court found that the board meeting at which the new members were admitted had been convened using misleading notice and that opposing directors had been led to believe the meeting would not occur due to mediation efforts.

The admission of the new members was therefore conducted in bad faith and declared null and void.

Because those members participated in a subsequent members’ meeting, quorum was lacking and the election of directors and subsequent board appointments were also invalid.

The court issued extensive declaratory relief restoring the prior membership and board composition and ordered governance reforms, including a monitor, audits, training, and conditions before a court‑ordered members’ meeting could be held.

The court determined the appropriate costs award following a successful application to remove a caution registered against title to property.

The applicant sought substantial indemnity costs, alleging the respondent misled the Land Registrar about the existence of an agreement of purchase and sale and failed to serve notice of the caution.

The court held that pre‑litigation requests for relief and the strength of the applicant’s case alone do not justify elevated costs.

However, the respondent’s misrepresentation to the Registrar and failure to provide required notice justified substantial indemnity costs under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The applicant’s claimed costs of $12,536.89 were found reasonable and were awarded in full.

The applicant mortgagee brought an application seeking a declaration that the respondent purchaser had no interest in land and an order directing the Land Registrar to remove a caution registered against title.

The caution was based on an agreement of purchase and sale that had been extended multiple times but ultimately collapsed when the purchaser was unable to provide a required deposit and advised that he could not complete the transaction.

The respondent argued that an oral agreement between a lender and the applicant’s lawyer further extended the closing date.

The court held that no enforceable oral extension existed, that any such agreement would be inconsistent with the written contract and barred by the parol evidence rule, and that the purchaser had anticipatorily breached the agreement.

As the respondent no longer had any interest in the land, the caution was invalid and ordered removed from title.