COURT FILE NO.: CV-21-00000267-0000
DATE: 2022 03 23
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: CHRISTIAN DOMBKOWSKI v. ROOTREE INC., WUNDEBA FAMILY RESTAURANTS INC., SWISS PACK INC., SPRINGTIME MANAGEMENT INC., ELITE PACK INC., REJUVENATING SPRING INC., and 1866252 ONTARIO LIMITED
BEFORE: Mandhane J.
COUNSEL: Jason K. Wong, for the Plaintiff
Jeramie Gallichan, for the Defendants
E N D O R S E M E N T
Overview
[1] The parties appeared before me on the Defendant’s motion to strike portions of the Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim on the basis that the impugned portions are “scandalous, frivolous or vexatious,” and/or “will prejudice or delay the fair trial of this matter”: Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, R. 25.11.
[2] The parties agree that I must only strike pleadings in the clearest of cases. Epstein J., as she then was, explained that “portions of a pleading that are irrelevant, argumentative or inserted for colour, or that constitute bear allegation should be struck out as scandalous”: George v. Harris, 2000 CarswellOnt 1714 at para. 20.
[3] Ordinarily, motions such as this are determined based on a reading of the allegations within the pleadings under attack as if they were true or could be proven. A pleading cannot be “scandalous” if it is relevant: Quizno's Canada Restaurant Corporation v. Kileel Developments Ltd., 2008 ONCA 644 at para 14. Therefore, the real issue is whether or not the allegations in the impugned pleading have any connection or relevance to the cause of action being asserted: Taylor v. Canada Cartage Systems Diversified GP Inc., 2018 ONSC 617 at para. 9. The court’s focus must be on weeding out claims that “cannot succeed”: Wernikowski v. Kirland, Murphy & Ain, 1999 CanLII 3822 (ON CA), 50 O.R. (3d) 124 (C.A.), at para. 12.
The impugned portions of the Statement of Claim
[4] In his Statement of Claim dated January 25, 2021, the Plaintiff claims compensation under s. 248 of the Ontario Business Corporations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. B.16 (i.e. the “oppression remedy”). In the alternative, the Plaintiff claims damages for fraudulent misrepresentation, and/or constructive dismissal/unpaid wages.
[5] The impugned portions of the Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim detail the long-standing relationship between the Plaintiff and Mr. Mohan Ahlowalia. Mr. Ahlowalia is not a named defendant but was the directing mind of the defendant corporations during the relevant time periods.
[6] Assuming their truth, the Plaintiff says that the impugned portions of the Statement of Claim would establish that:
a. The Plaintiff met Mr. Ahlowalia in 1986 when he was 15 years old and Mr. Ahlowalia was 25 years old (para. 10);
b. Mr. Ahlowalia convinced the Plaintiff to quit high school and to work in his various businesses, such that the Plaintiff became dependent on him (para. 11);
c. Mr. Ahlowalia began developing a “cult-like following” in and around 2000, and portrayed himself to the Plaintiff as a spiritual leader who had a “message from God” (para. 17)
d. The Plaintiff followed Mr. Ahlowalia’s instructions in relation to purchasing a property for the cult members (the “Mt. Nemo residence”), marrying a fellow cult-member (Sheela Chandan), and having children with Ms. Chandan (para. 17);
e. The Plaintiff lived with Ms. Chandan, their children, and other cult members in the Mt. Nemo residence between 2005 and 2020 (para. 33);
f. The Plaintiff worked at the defendant corporations without pay at Mr. Ahlowalia’s direction (para. 17);
g. The Plaintiff (and other cult members) were advised by Mr. Ahlowalia that they would be granted an ownership interest in the defendant corporations in return for their financial contributions and unpaid labour (para. 21, 50);
h. The Plaintiff continued working for Mr. Ahlowalia after learning that two of his children with Ms. Chandan were fathered by Mr. Ahlowalia because of the latter’s influence over him (para. 29);
i. After Mr. Ahlowalia was charged criminally in 2019, the Plaintiff was directed by Mr. St-Cyr to take responsibility for the gun charges against Mr. Ahlowalia, but refused to do so (paras. 30-31);
j. After Mr. Ahlowalia was charged criminally in 2019, he continued to be the de facto operating mind of the defendant corporations despite the Defendants removing him as a registered director (para. 32); and
k. The Plaintiff moved out of the Mt. Nemo residence and left the cult due to “a variety of work-related incidents, including Ahlowalia’s arrest, St-Cyr asking the Plaintiff to take responsibility for gun charges, and family proceedings initiated by Ms. Chandan” (para. 35).
The parties’ positions
[7] The Plaintiff says that the impugned portions of his Statement of Claim are necessary to prove: (1) the reasonableness of the Plaintiff’s expectations in relation to an ownership interest in the corporation (i.e. oppression remedy), (2) fraudulent representation or bad faith on the part of the directors of the corporation (i.e. Mr. Ahlowalia and Mr. St-Cyr); and (3) that a reasonable person would deem the defendant’s actions after criminal charges were laid to amount to constructive dismissal.
[8] The Defendant’s argues that these portions of the pleadings are irrelevant, or so tangentially relevant that their prejudicial affect outweighs their probative value. The Defendants note the following, that:
a. Mr. Ahlowalia is not a party to these proceedings;
b. There is no legal finding that a “cult” existed because related criminal proceedings are ongoing; and
c. The formation of the cult and the influence that Mr. Ahlowalia exerted on the Plaintiff as a young person predate formation of the defendant corporations, let alone the alleged oppressive conduct or constructive dismissal.
[9] The Defendants worry that allowing the claims to proceed will overly complicate the trial.
Analysis
[10] Overall, this is not one of those “clearest of cases” where striking pleadings at such an early stage is warranted: LBI Brands Inc. v. Aquaterra Corporation, 2016 ONSC 3572 at para 10-11.
[11] It would not be fair to deprive the Plaintiff of the right to advance his case on its merits. On the unique facts of this case, I find that the pre-existing relationship between the Plaintiff and Mr. Ahlowalia, as well as their respective roles within the alleged “cult’ are relevant to the Plaintiff’s understanding of his role in the defendant corporations, whether as an owner or employee, and the reasonableness of his expectations in that regard.
[12] The fact that Mr. Ahlowalia is not a named party is not particularly germane to my determination. He was a director and registered shareholder of the defendant corporations at the relevant time, and the Plaintiff is not required to pierce the corporate veil in order to advance his claim under the oppression remedy. Mr. Ahlowalia can be called as a witness at trial by either party or added by the defendants by way of counter-claim.
[13] Finally, the fact that the cult has not been “proven” in criminal court is immaterial to the civil proceedings. Here, the Plaintiff is not seeking to rely on criminal conduct per se but rather that overall nature of his relationship with Mr. Ahlowalia, the nature of the alleged cult of which he was a member, as well as the actions of the directors of the defendant corporations after the criminal charges were laid. This is not a situation where the Plaintiff has plead the simple fact of outstanding criminal charges and nothing more: Transamerica Occidental Life Insurance Co. v. Toronto Dominion Bank, 1997 CarswellOnt 4 (S.C.J.) at para. 12.
[14] Finally, this is not a case where the impugned portions of the Statement of Claim are “marginally relevant” such that I should exercise my discretion to strike them on the basis that their prejudicial effect outweighs their probative value. To the contrary, the nature of the Plaintiff’s relationship with Mr. Ahlowalia is central to his claims and he is entitled to have his claim tested on the merits.
[15] The Defendants’ motion to strike portions of the Plaintiff’s pleadings is dismissed. The Defendants shall pay the Plaintiff $3,500 (all inclusive) in partial indemnity costs.
[16] I am not seized of this matter.
Mandhane J
DATE: March 23, 2022
COURT FILE NO.: CV-21-00000267-0000
DATE: 2022 03 23
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: DOMBKOWSKI v. ROOTREE INC., WUNDEBA FAMILY RESTAURANTS INC., SWISS PACK INC., SPRINGTIME MANAGEMENT INC., ELITE PACK INC., REJUVENATING SPRING INC., and 1866252 ONTARIO LIMITED)
COUNSEL: Jason K. Wong, for the Plaintiff
Jeramie Gallichan, for the Defendants
ENDORSEMENT
Mandhane J.
DATE: March 23, 2022