Gurbax Singh Wahid v. Hatjinder Singh Kandola, 2015 ONSC 7245

Overview

This is an appeal from the order of Patterson J. dismissing the appellant's motion for a stay of the respondents' application.

[2]

Analysis

The appellants allege that Patterson J. erred in principle when he failed to find that the respondents' application was premature because they had not exhausted the internal remedies available to them under the Sikh Cultural Society's Constitution.

3We agree. There are strong policy reasons why courts are reluctant to intervene in the internal affairs of a non-profit corporation, particularly where the rights at stake do not rise above the question of membership. Hence, the principle that parties must exhaust their internal remedies before coming to court.

4In this case, we reject the suggestion by the respondents that the respondents had no effective remedy under Society's Constitution because of the manner in which their membership was terminated. Article XIII of the Society's Constitution provides an appeal for all individuals who are removed from membership by the executive committee. The respondents are such individuals and they have yet to avail themselves of this appeal process. Unless the respondents' memberships are restored they cannot be eligible to be members of the executive committee.

5We also reject the suggestion that we are bound by the decision of Rogin J. in Kandola et al v. Kooner et a! 2010 ONSC 3362, in which he states that the provisions of Article Xlll of the Society's Constitution are not in accordance with the principles of natural justice. First, the Divisional Court is not bound by a decision of a Superior Court judge. Second, the finding by Rogin J., referred to above, was made in the context of a very different factual matrix. At its highest for our purposes, the finding reinforces the need to abide by the principles of natural justice in implementing the remedy afforded by Article XIII.

[6]

Disposition and Costs

For these reasons the appeal is allowed, the decision of Patterson J. is set aside and an order is to issue staying the respondent's application.

7I have endorsed the appeal book as follows: For reasons given orally, this appeal is allowed. The order of Patterson J. is set aside and an order is to issue staying

the respondents' application. The appellants are entitled to their costs of the motion before Patterson J., the leave motion, and the hearing today, which we fix in the amount of $8000, all inclusive.