CITATION: Dhadda v. Dhaliwal, 2015 ONSC 4885
COURT FILE NO.: CV-15-2522-10
DATE: 2015 07 31
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: DIDAR DHADDA, NACHHATAR SINGH, SATPAL SINGH SIDHU
- and - LAKHVIR SINGH DHALIWAL and RAJINDER SINGH SAHOTA
BEFORE: LeMay J.
COUNSEL: J. Irving, for the Applicants
P. Malysheuski and D. Keith for the Respondents
ENDORSEMENT
[1] I am the Case Management Judge in the above noted matter, and in Court File No. CV-14-2721. I issued an endorsement in that matter on June 25, 2015, and the parties re-attended before me today pursuant to that endorsement.
[2] The history of this action is set out in my June 25, 2015 endorsement and in the endorsements of Sproat J. that are referenced therein.
[3] The dispute in this case concerns two groups of individuals who are members of Nanaksar Satsang Sabha Gurdwara (“the Gurdwara”) in Brampton. The Gurdwara is managed by a Corporation, and the actions that I am concerned with involve the Corporation. There have been, and are going to be, various actions that involve these two groups, and the law firms that represented them over a period of time. Many of the outstanding actions and potential proceedings involve costs.
[4] The purpose of this endorsement is to provide these parties, and other interested parties, with directions relating to the further adjudication of this matter, and of other related matters.
The Next Appearance
[5] The parties appearing before me are all able to make themselves available for a further case management conference before me on October 19th, 2015 at 9:00 am for two hours. Given the directions I am making below, this date is peremptory to all parties (and counsel) who wish to appear on that date. It cannot be changed without my leave, even if all interested parties consent to a change.
[6] At that next appearance, any party who appears to make submissions is expected to turn their mind to the question of how the Court can adjudicate the various matters relating to the Corporation’s governance that are proceeding before it. For clarity, I have not made any rulings on how these proceedings should be advanced, or whether I have jurisdiction over any of these proceedings, other than Court Files No. CV-14-2724 and CV-15-2522. Those two matters are clearly within my jurisdiction.
[7] However, I will be considering the question of my jurisdiction to assume case management responsibility over the matters mentioned herein at the October 19, 2015 proceeding. Any party who wishes to make submissions on that issue must attend on that date.
Limitations on Other Actions
[8] In my endorsement of June 25, 2015, there were a series of interim Orders in paragraphs 49 (d) to 49 (f). These Orders limited the ability of any party to commence litigation with respect to the Gurdwara without my leave. Those Orders continue in effect until the appearance before me on October 19, 2015, or such longer time as I may Order.
[9] I should note that the sub-paragraphs in paragraph 49 of my June 25th, 2015 endorsement refer the reader to procedures outlined in paragraphs 42 and 48. Those references should all be to paragraphs 50, as there is a typographical error in my endorsement. I advised the parties who appeared before me today of that issue.
[10] There are three exceptions to the restrictions that I have placed on litigation in this matter. First, the current Board of Directors of the Corporation may commence, defend or continue litigation that is unrelated in any way to the governance issues before me in this matter. If there is any doubt about whether a matter is unrelated to the governance issues before me, then the parties may contact my judicial assistant in order to either provide written materials or make an appointment to resolve the issue.
[11] Second, the parties before me today advised that there was another litigation matter involving the parties in this litigation. The parties had reached a settlement, and the action was being dismissed, subject to whether I was prepared to grant leave to have the action dismissed. I was not provided with the Court File number for that action. However, I granted leave to the parties to have that action dismissed in the usual course over the counter.
[12] Finally, the current Board of Directors seeks leave to commence litigation against a number of the former directors on account of some costs that were paid out to a law firm. I now turn to that issue.
The Simmons Da Silva Costs
[13] In Sproat J.’s endorsement of January 23, 2015 (2015 ONSC 595), there is discussion of approximately $90,000.00 in costs paid to the Simmons Da Silva law firm and one of its lawyers, Mr. Taper (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the Simmons Da Silva parties”). These funds appear to have been paid out by the previous directors after the Order of O’Connor J. was issued.
[14] Counsel for the Corporation is seeking leave to commence, once instructed to do so, an action against the former directors and others for these costs. The former directors represented by Mr. Irvine consent to me granting leave to commence this action, but in turn are seeking leave to bring a third party claim against the Simmons Da Silva parties for these costs.
[15] It appears to me that this is the most expeditious way of placing this costs dispute before the Court so that all of the issues and potential issues can be dealt with. As a result, I grant leave to pursue this course of action.
[16] In terms of this action and the third party claim against the Simmons Da Silva parties, there is an open question as to whether I should case-manage this action once it is commenced (along with others described below). As a result, I make the following directions:
a) The action is to be commenced by the Corporation as soon as possible, as is the third party claim.
b) The Simmons Da Sliva parties will not be required or permitted to defend the third party claim or the main action until at least twenty days after the appearance before me on October 19, 2015.
c) If the Simmons Da Silva parties wish to make any submissions about how this matter is to be handled procedurally, then they will make those submissions on October 19, 2015.
[17] I emphasise that I have not made any findings about whether I should case manage any of these other actions, or how they should be case managed.
Other Proceedings
[18] I have also been advised by counsel that the Corporation is the Defendant in a small claims proceeding (SC-15-003723-00) relating to advice provided by the Gray Whitley van der Valk firm. Both Simmons Da Silva (the firm) and the Corporation are Defendants in this action. It was commenced on June 9, 2015 in Brampton.
[19] It appears to me that this action may be related to the costs proceeding that may be commenced against the Simmons Da Silva parties as outlined above. I also note that every judge of the Superior Court is also a Judge of the Small Claims Court. As a result, I am directing that no further steps be taken in this matter pending the case management conference on October 19, 2015. Counsel on this small claims action may attend before me at that time to discuss how to proceed with this matter. At that time, there will be an opportunity for the parties to this action to make submissions addressing how this matter is to be handled, and whether it should be consolidated with the remaining actions.
[20] Similarly, I am advised that the firm of Dunsmore Wearing has commenced an assessment of costs in Toronto as against the Corporation. This assessment is file number CV-15-00529173-0000. I am also advised that the costs claimed by the Dunsmore Wearing firm are likely related to governance matters that flowed from these applications. In the circumstances, I am also directing that no further steps be taken in this matter pending the case conference on October 19, 2015. Counsel on this costs assessment may attend before me at that time to discuss how to proceed with this matter. At that time, there will be an opportunity for the parties to this action to make submissions addressing how this matter is to be handled, and whether it should be consolidated with the remaining actions.
[21] I understand that there may be further actions for costs, or other proceedings that are commenced by various parties against the Corporation relating to these governance issues. In the event that such further proceedings are being commenced, then they require my leave to continue. The Corporation, or its Counsel, may serve a copy of this Endorsement on the party bringing the action or other proceeding. The proceeding is then stayed, and the party that commenced it may attend the case conference on October 19, 2015.
[22] For clarity, no further steps in any of these proceedings are required or permitted without my leave.
Other Procedural Matters
[23] There is a contempt motion proceeding before Sproat J. later this month. I was advised that materials had all been filed, except for some additional case books, which the Applicant in this matter was going to provide by August 14th, 2015.
[24] There is a motion relating to last year’s Annual Members Meeting proceeding before Edwards J. on September 1st, 2015. The timetable for the exchange of materials in that matter was agreed to by the parties as follows:
a) The Applicant’s materials (being the Respondents in Court File No. CV-15-2522) must be served and filed by August 11th, 2015
b) The Respondent’s materials must be served and filed by August 18th, 2015.
c) The Applicant’s reply materials must be served and filed by August 25th, 2015
[25] Given the amount of litigation in this matter, and the familiarity that the lawyers have with both their factual and legal briefs, I would not expect there to be any problems in adhering to this timetable, and I hereby order the parties to do so.
[26] Finally, the parties who appeared before me today are directed to ensure that this Order comes to the attention of any and all of the third parties who may be affected by it. To that end, I direct counsel for the Respondents in this case to serve a copy of this Order on the law firms and individuals mentioned herein.
[27] I would be remiss if I did not thank counsel for the professional and organized way in which they handled this case conference. I appreciate their efforts.
LeMay J.
DATE: July 31, 2015
COURT FILE NO.: CV-15-2522-10
DATE: 2015 07 31
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: DIDAR DHADDA, NACHHATAR SINGH, SATPAL SINGH SIDHU – and –
LAKHVIR SINGH DHALIWAL and RAJINDER SINGH SAHOTA
BEFORE: LeMay J.
COUNSEL: J. Irving, for the Applicants
P. Malysheuski and D. Keith for the Respondents
ENDORSEMENT
LeMay J.
DATE: July 31, 2015