NATURE OF THE APPLICATION

[1] The Applicants Yan Huo and Ran Xu are a couple. Both were members of the Respondent Mississauga Chinese Christian Church (“the Church”) for many years. On December 18, 2018, the Church’s Elders-Deacons Board made a decision to terminate the Applicants’ membership based on their finding that the Applicants had “seriously destructed the unity of the church”.

[2] The Church’s Termination Decision had been preceded by a letter, given to the Applicants two months earlier, warning them of consequences if they did not stop the disruptive conduct described in the letter. The Applicants continued to be disruptive. The Termination Decision described additional disruptive behaviour subsequent to the warning letter, and gave the Applicants 15 days to repent, failing which their membership would be terminated.

[3] The Applicants were emphatic in their submissions to the Court that the findings of misconduct relied on by the Church were “all lies”, and that they could not repent for things they did not do.

[4] In their Application issued December 6, 2019, the Applicants sought three categories of relief by asking this Court:

a. To declare the Church’s decision terminating their membership to be “null and void” for non-compliance with the Church’s by-laws regarding board composition and failure to conduct the investigative/fact-finding process;

b. To direct the Church to hold an oral membership termination hearing;

c. To order that Applicant Yan Huo be allowed “to review and copy the English By-laws and corporate records of the Respondent”.

[5] The Mississauga Chinese Christian Church is a not-for-profit corporation incorporated under Ontario’s Corporations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.38. The Church makes the following arguments: the Church had a strong evidentiary basis to terminate the Applicants’ membership; the only question for the court, per the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of Canada, is whether the Church followed its own by-laws in doing so and accorded natural justice to the Applicants in the membership termination process; and that the record establishes that the Church did so.

THE APPLICATION HEARING ON JANUARY 19, 2022:

[6] The Applicants relied on their affidavits sworn November 30, 2019, with attached exhibits. The Respondent conducted cross-examinations of both Applicants, and the resulting transcripts were filed with its responding Record.

[7] The Church filed the affidavit of Jialiang Han, Chair of the Church’s Elders-Deacons Board (“Chair Han”), sworn August 21, 2020, with attached exhibits. Chair Han’s affidavit describes the context and the process leading to the decision to terminate the Applicants’ membership.

[8] The Applicants did not cross-examine Chair Han.

[9] The Church also filed over 700 email communications between the Applicants and Church leaders, produced by the Applicants by court order. The emails were in Mandarin and English, with English translations of the Mandarin communications filed. In total, the Respondent’s record exceeded 1500 pages.

[10] Both the Applicants and the Respondent filed factums and authorities for the hearing.

[11] The Church was represented by counsel at the hearing before me.

[12] The Applicants had been represented through most of the Application process, but proceeded without counsel at the hearing of the Application. They confirmed to the Court that they had been represented in the preparation of their affidavits, when they attended at their cross-examinations, and in preparation of their factum.

[13] The Applicants represented themselves at the hearing of their Application, which was conducted virtually. Mr. Huo and Ms. Xu shared the allotted time for argument, and both made submissions in English. The Applicants had arranged the attendance of a Mandarin interpreter, who was affirmed by the court. When asked what assistance they needed from the interpreter, the Applicants advised the Court that they did not require the interpreter to translate their own submissions, as they would present in English. However, they thought they might need translation assistance to ensure they understood the Church’s submissions and any comments or questions made by the Court. The hearing proceeded on that basis.

LEGAL FRAMEWORK

[14] In general, the Superior Court of Justice has jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes where legal rights are at stake. In reviewing decisions of incorporated religious organizations, however, a court’s inquiry must be restricted to whether the corporation’s decisions were lawfully made pursuant to its own rules (i.e., its by-laws) and consistent with the rules of natural justice: Ivantchenko, et al. v. Sisters of Saint Kosmas Aitolos Greek Orthodox Monastery, 2011 ONSC 6481, at para. 8; Highwood Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses (Judicial Committee) v. Wall, 2018 SCC 26, [2018] 1 S.C.R. 750, at para. 24. Courts must not adjudicate theological disputes.

[15] The Respondent Church is incorporated as a non-profit corporation, pursuant to the Corporations Act . The Applicants were members of the corporation at the time their membership was terminated.

[16] In reviewing the Termination Decision at issue in this application, the Court must not inquire into the relative adequacy of the by-law. Its review is limited to hearing and deciding the Applicants’ allegations that the Church failed to follow its by-laws, and that they were denied natural justice in the membership termination process.

Relevant by-Laws:

[17] The Church’s by-laws were available only in Mandarin at the time of the Termination Decision.

[18] During the Application process, an unofficial translation into English was prepared by a member of the Church’s congregation. For the purpose of the hearing before me, all parties agreed that this English translation was accurate, and made reference to it in their oral and written submissions.

[19] Section B.1.6 of the Church’s by-laws addresses the termination of a member of the Church, containing a list of the reasons for which the Church may remove members.

[20] The relevant subsection, B.1.6.5, states: “Member has seriously destructed unity. After an investigation and verification by the Pastor-Elders Board, the Elders-Deacons Board may decide to remove membership”.

[21] With respect to the distinction between the “Pastor-Elders Board” and the “Elders-Deacons Board”, subsection B.5.1.3 states that “[i]f the number of active elders is fewer than three, the pastor-elders board shall be amalgamated with the elders-deacons board.”

[22] For clarity, I note that the same Board entity was variously referenced in the application materials as the “Elders-and-Deacons Board” and the “Elders-Deacons Board”, with and without capital letters on “elders” and “deacons”.

THE CHURCH’S EVIDENCE

[23] Chair Han’s evidence is summarized as follows.

[24] The Applicants were registered as members of the Church as of 2006.

[25] Starting in about 2014, both Applicants began engaging in conduct which disrupted the Church’s ongoing operations and its ability to serve its membership.

[26] These actions took the form of disruptive comments about Church operations and about content of preaching and sermons, disparaging remarks made to and about the Church’s leaders and pastors, and about some of the other regular members.

[27] In September 2018, the Applicants significantly disrupted the adult Bible and prayer sessions known as “Sunday School”; on one occasion Mr. Huo videotaped the Sunday school teacher without her consent.

[28] The Church gave the Applicants numerous verbal warnings to stop their inappropriate conduct, but the Applicants failed to do so. As a result of the continuation of the Applicants’ inappropriate conduct, the Elders-Deacons Board met on October 3 and 11, 2018. A decision was made to provide a letter to the Applicants setting out the Church’s concerns with their conduct.

[29] The letter of October 11, 2018, referred to by all parties as the “Warning Letter”, described three specific incidents of disruption of Sunday school by the Applicants in September 2018. The Applicants were said to have disrupted the Sunday school sessions and occupied the Sunday School classroom locations during time scheduled for the classes.

[30] The Warning Letter concludes by directing the Applicants to hand over classroom “C” to be used for scheduled Sunday School classes. Further, Applicant Huo is “seriously warned” about his conduct that disrupted the Sunday school classes, and both Applicants are warned that if they “continue to disrupt the normal operation of the Church, the Church reserves the right to take further actions”.

[31] Chair Han’s affidavit describes the continuation of inappropriate conduct by the Applicants after delivery of the Warning Letter. At paragraph 12, he attests to personally witnessing such conduct at the Sunday worship service on December 9, 2018: “Huo shouted profanities at the pastor during the session. Such conduct was highly disruptive to MCCC’s [the Church’s] Sunday sermon session and was extremely offensive to the other MCCC members present.”

[32] Chair Han’s affidavit goes on to describe, at paragraph 15, that the Pastor-Elders Board conducted an investigation into the Applicants’ inappropriate conduct and verified that the inappropriate conduct had occurred. As a result of that investigation, the Elders-Deacons Board met and made the decision to terminate the Applicants’ membership “based upon the destruction they had caused to the unity of MCCC to date, and to protect the MCCC against any further damage.”

[33] The Termination Decision letter is titled “Decision to Terminate Membership of Brother Yan Huo and Sister Ran Xu”, and is authored by “The Elder and Deacon Board of the Mississauga Chinese Christian Church”.

[34] The Termination Decision references the same inappropriate conduct described in the earlier Warning Letter. It then describes the Applicants’ further disruptive conduct on December 9, 2018, as follows:

[D]uring the process to elect pastors, elders, and deacons, the Church was again seriously disrupted by the behaviour of Brother Yan Huo and Sister Xu. Even more seriously, Brother Yan Huo spoke disrespectfully against the pastor during the Sunday worship service, interrupted the orderly meeting of the Church’s worship service, and interfered with the holiness and solemness [sic] of the worship services.

[35] The Termination Decision then references the by-laws, the verification process regarding the inappropriate conduct, and the emergency meeting at which “after praying for the matter, the Elders and Deacon seriously discussed and reviewed the events that occurred on the previous Sunday.”

[36] The Termination Decision concludes by advising the Applicants of the decision to terminate their membership “effective within fifteen days”. It also advises that “[i]f Brother Yan Huo and Sister Ran Xu are willing to repent in the Lord, and took the initiative to communicate with the Elder-and-Deacon Board of the Church, the Church may accept them as members of the Church based on the principle of ‘loving God and Love our neighbours’.”

[37] With respect to the 15-day period, Chair Han’s affidavit states:

[T]he Applicants were provided the opportunity to submit their comments and acknowledge their wrongdoing within the 15-day period set out therein. The Applicants, however, failed to make any such submissions either verbally or in writing within the 15-day period.

IS TERMINATION DECISION NULL AND VOID FOR IMPROPER COMPOSITION OF THE DECISION-MAKING BODY?

[38] The Applicants allege that the Elders-Deacons Board failed to follow the by-laws regarding composition of the Board and the decision should be declared null and void accordingly.

[39] The Applicants ask this Court to find that the Elders-Deacons Board was not properly constituted at the time it made its Termination Decision. When cross-examined, Ms. Xu stated that her evidence for this assertion is that the Board did not keep written minutes of the meeting. The Applicants also objected to the lack of a signature on the Termination Letter, which was simply signed in the name of the Elders-Deacons Board of the Church.

[40] The Church’s by-laws do not have a requirement for the keeping of minutes, nor do they speak to how decision letters are to be signed.

[41] I note further that, in circumstances of insufficient membership of the constituting committees, by-law subsection B.5.1.3 permits that “[i]f the number of active elders is fewer than three, the Pastor-Elders Board shall be amalgamated with the Elders-Deacons Board.” A lack of distinction between those two boards does not violate the by-laws when the number of active elders is fewer than three.

[42] In considering whether the Applicants have established to a civil standard their contention of improper constitution of the Elders-Deacons Board at the time of their membership termination, the Court is left with the disputed but untested evidence of the long-time leader, Chair Han, who has direct knowledge of the Church’s Board, committee functions, and composition.

[43] The Applicants now ask that their evidence be preferred to the Church’s direct affidavit evidence. I note that on cross-examination, the Applicants admitted they did not have direct knowledge of the composition of the Church’s Boards and committees.

[44] The Applicants’ failure to cross-examine Chair Han on his affidavit, and thereby challenge his evidence, leaves the court without the evidentiary basis to reject the Chair’s evidence as to the Elders-Deacons Board’s composition and decision-making process.

[45] With respect to allegations of the number of pastors employed or vacant positions at the time of the Termination Decision, the Applicants’ evidence amounts to conjecture. The Court notes further that the Applicants chose not to cross-examine Chair Han with respect to their contention that the Church’s decision-making body was not properly constituted.

[46] The Applicants’ assertions and beliefs do not amount to proof on a balance of probabilities. Having failed to cross-examine the Church’s deponent, the Applicants now ask this Court to find, as proven facts, propositions to which Chair Han did not have an opportunity to respond or to explain. In such circumstances I decline to draw the conclusions the Applicants seek, and find that the Applicants have not discharged their onus: See ThyssenKrupp Elevator (Canada) Ltd. v. Amos, 2014 ONSC 3910, at paras. 39 and 45.

[47] In conclusion on this issue, the Applicants have not demonstrated that the Elders-Deacons Board which made the Termination Decision was improperly constituted.

IS TERMINATION DECISION NULL AND VOID FOR FAILURE TO INVESTIGATE AND VERIFY FACTS?

[48] The Applicants allege that the Elders-Deacons Board failed to follow the by-laws which require “investigation” and “verification” of alleged improper conduct of a member.

[49] In this regard, I accept the evidence of Chair Han regarding the process of investigation and verification of facts as required by the by-laws.

[50] With regard to the Church’s finding regarding Mr. Huo’s disruption of Sunday worship on December 9, 2018, Chair Han’s evidence described his first-person observation of the event. As above, the Applicants’ failure to cross-examine him leaves that evidence unchallenged.

[51] Further, I noted that Ms. Xu herself conceded on cross-examination that her husband spoke out loud during the worship service, telling the pastor that the sermon he was preaching was “nonsense”.

[52] I conclude on this issue that the investigation and fact finding, and the conclusion reached, was supported by evidence of misconduct. The misconduct found of actions taking place during community worship and Bible study could reasonably form the basis for a conclusion that the actions of the Applicants “seriously destructed the unity” of the congregation.

[53] I also note that the hundreds of emails in the record contain copies of communications from the Applicants to Church pastors and leaders from Mr. Huo which are reasonably characterized as inflammatory, insulting, belittling and disrespectful to the recipients.

[54] I agree with Respondent counsel that these documents in the record corroborate the Church’s general position that the Applicants’ behaviour toward the Church leaders was expressed in a disruptive manner over a period of several years prior to the termination of their membership.

[55] That said, it is only necessary for the purpose of this Application to evaluate the Applicants’ contentions that the Church did not follow its by-laws and denied the Applicants natural justice. In concluding that the Church did investigate and verify the evidentiary basis on which it based its Termination Decision, this court need not go further.

[56] Indeed, decisions of this court and higher courts have emphasized the importance of courts not interfering with freedom of religion by stepping into questions of what type of behaviour of a congregant should appropriately be censured, or not censured, by the leadership of a religious community.

[57] In FLK Institute of Taoism v. MPAC, 2022 ONSC 57 (Div. Crt.), at para. 32, the Divisional Court recently upheld the decision of G. Miller J., emphasizing that the “protection of religious practices and freedom of religion remain important values in the Province.”

[58] As Justice Iacobucci explained in Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem, 2004 SCC 47, [2004] 2 S.C.R. 551, religion is “integrally linked to one's self-definition and spiritual fulfilment, the practices of which allow individuals to foster a connection with the divine or with the subject or object of that spiritual faith.” To safeguard the freedom of religion and to enable everyone to pursue those practices that allow them to connect with the divine, or the subject or object of their spiritual faith, the courts cannot and do not interfere with the subject matter of a religious practice or belief: See also Hofer v. Hofer et al., 2021 MBQB 175, at para. 239.

[59] The Supreme Court affirmed in Highwood Congregation, supra, at para. 2 that a court will only intervene in the affairs of a church to vindicate a legal right, because “ecclesiastical issues … are not justiciable.”

[60] The jurisprudence is clear that this restriction of the role of the courts in religious disputes applies to matters of individual belief as well as to religious associations or congregations. There may be serious disagreements between members of a congregation about the correct interpretation of a religious text or the exercise of a particular spiritual practice; however, the court cannot and will not adjudicate on these differences or enforce a particular theological doctrine.

were the applicants entitled to an oral hearing?

[61] The Applicants argue that they were entitled as a matter of natural justice to an oral hearing.

[62] The Church’s by-laws do not expressly provide for a hearing; however, the Applicants ask this Court to read a requirement for an oral hearing into the “investigate and verify” requirement of the membership termination by-law.

[63] The Supreme Court of Canada recently upheld the ruling by Nishikawa J. that the Corporations Act does not specify the content of procedural fairness provisions of corporate religious organizations: Aga v. Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church of Canada, 2019 ONSC 7600, aff’d 2021 SCC 22, at para. 12.

[64] The question to consider is, therefore, what is the content of natural justice at common law in this circumstance where the by-law does not require an oral hearing?

[65] The determination of what is the requisite procedural content of “natural justice” in the context of an incorporated church was addressed by the Supreme Court of Canada in Lakeside Colony of Hutterian Brethren v. Hofer, 1992 CanLII 37 (SCC), [1992] 3 S.C.R. 165. In that decision, Gonthier J. answered that question, at p. 195, as follows: “The content of the principles of natural justice is flexible and depends on the circumstances in which the question arises. However, the most basic requirements are that of notice, opportunity to make representations, and an unbiased tribunal” [emphasis added].

[66] In Baker v. Canada, 1999 CanLII 699 (SCC), 1999 SCC 699, [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817, at para. 33, the Supreme Court of Canada clarified that having the right to make representations does not entitle a party to an oral hearing. That decision clarified that “meaningful participation can occur in different ways in different situations”, depending on the context. The ability to make written submissions or to otherwise make their position known and have it considered can be sufficient.

[67] Applying the Supreme Court of Canada’s direction from the above decisions to the Church’ Termination Decision process, I find that, in the absence of an express hearing requirement in the by-law, the Applicants were entitled as a matter of procedural fairness and natural justice to know the case against them and to respond. The Church was not required to provide an oral hearing as part of that process.

[68] It is not disputed that basic procedural fairness requires an unbiased tribunal. This is not in dispute as the Applicants did not argue mala fides as a ground in their Application.

[69] With respect to the Termination Decision itself, I find that the letter communicating the Church’s concerns was specific, and explained what behaviour formed the basis for their conclusion that the Applicants had “destructed the unity” of the Church, for which membership may be terminated. I therefore find that the Church’s process, provided the Applicants, with sufficient information and particulars to know the case against them.

[70] There is no dispute that the Elders-Deacons Board has jurisdiction under the by-laws to revoke membership in certain circumstances.

[71] With respect to their entitlement to respond to the case against them, the Applicants acknowledge receiving the Termination Decision in a timely way. They also acknowledged knowing that implementation of the Church’s decision had been deferred for a 15-day period, during which they were invited to come forward, to “repent in the Lord, and t[ake] the initiative to communicate with the Elder-and-Deacon Board of the Church”.

[72] The Church’s unchallenged evidence was that if the Applicants had written or spoken to the Elders-Deacons Board during this time to acknowledge their wrongdoing, the Board would have considered revoking their membership termination.

[73] However, the Applicants did not do so. In their argument at the Application hearing, Mr. Huo and Ms. Xu were both emphatic that they did not agree with the factual findings or the teachings of the sermon to which Mr. Huo took vocal objection, and that they were not prepared to apologize or repent for their actions.

[74] The Applicants submitted that Mr. Huo did email “Pastor Adam” on December 17, 2018, within a day of their receipt of the Termination Decision. In that email, Mr. Huo quoted from the Church by-laws and a statutory reference, and asked Pastor Adam if he had participated in the investigation referenced in the Termination Decision, and whether Pastor Adam had “submit[ted] any accusation” to the Elders-Deacons Board. He also asked Pastor Adam for an English copy of the Church’s by-laws.

[75] It does not appear in the record that Pastor Adam replied to Mr. Huo’s questions about the investigation or any “accusation”. I note that his email to Pastor Adam was sent as a reply or forwarding of a previous email of December 5, 2018, about upcoming Church community elections.

[76] Mr. Huo’s email is written to “Pastor Adam”. It is not addressed to the Elders-Deacons Board, nor does Mr. Huo ask that it be forwarded to the Elders-Deacons Board or ask for a meeting with the Board.

[77] On the evidence as a whole, I conclude that the Applicants’ primary disagreements with their Church’s functioning at the time of the Termination Decision related to sermon content, to the manner in which Bible study was being taught, to the overall transparency of the Church’s decision-making, and to the moral suitability of its religious leaders.

[78] Such opposition, while strongly felt by the Applicants, is at its core a dispute of a doctrinal nature, concerning the role of the Church in the spiritual life of its members, and the alleged failure of the Church’s leaders to exemplify the Church’s professed values in giving guidance to the congregation. Such types of disagreements are at the heart of the religious freedoms enjoyed by the Applicants and the Respondent, and are non-justiciable by this Court.

[79] At the hearing of the Application, both Applicants argued strongly that the Church’s Termination Decision was based on inaccurate factual findings of misconduct, which they variously described as “fabricated”, “all lies”, “twisted”, “slanderous”, and “false charges”.

[80] I find that the Applicants were provided with an express opportunity to respond to the Elders-Deacons Board and to explain why the findings were false, to describe their perspective on the events referenced in the Termination Decision, and to show why, as a result, they could not apologize or repent as requested, and why they would ask to keep their membership in the Church. They chose not to do so.

[81] In the context of the extensive record in this application, I conclude that the Applicants were provided with an opportunity to put forward their version of the facts they disputed. If they had wished, they could also have asked for continuation of their membership, or for additional time to respond substantively if they needed more than the 15 days. They were clear in their submissions that they did not do so.

[82] Their failure to respond, I conclude, stemmed from their refusal to attorn to the jurisdiction of the Elders-Deacons Board and the authority of the Church in membership matters.

[83] Had the Applicants taken the initiative to communicate their perspective as offered in the Termination Decision, and had the Church failed to consider their response or grant a reasonable extension, the record before this Court would be different, as would the arguments the Applicants might make about process.

[84] In these circumstances, however, I conclude that having failed to exercise the natural justice opportunity to respond which was offered to them, the Applicants are without evidentiary standing to complain about the content of that invitation as a matter of sufficient natural justice.

[85] In all the circumstances, I find that the 15-day period given for response to the Elders-Deacons Board regarding the Termination Decision, accorded to the Applicants procedural fairness sufficient to satisfy common law natural justice requirements.

[86] The Applicants have therefore failed to establish, on a balance of probabilities, a denial of natural justice.

[87] I do not give effect to this ground of the application.

WERE THE APPLICANTS ENTITLED TO AN OFFICIAL ENGLISH LANGUAGE VERSION OF THE CHURCH’S BY-LAWS?

[88] The Applicants ask, as a separate head of relief in the Application, that the Church be ordered to provide them with an official English language version of the by-laws.

[89] On cross-examination, Mr. Huo admitted that he was aware of the Church’s by-laws, which are written in Mandarin, and had access to a copy as long ago as 2009.

[90] The evidence supports findings that the Church’s by-laws were written and passed in the Mandarin language, and made available to members in that format. The Applicants confirmed to the Court that they both speak Mandarin.

[91] The parties advised that the practical need for an English translation of the by-laws first arose when the Applicants retained counsel who did not read Mandarin. Their counsel required an English language translation of the by-laws in order to provide legal advice.

[92] A member of the Church’s congregation translated the by-laws into English. At the hearing of the Application, the parties agreed that this English translation of the by-laws, filed in the record, was accurate for the purposes of the Application.

[93] The Applicants argue that the Church is required by the Corporations Act to have an English language version of its by-laws, and that it failed to comply with that statutory requirement.

[94] Church counsel argues that there was no statutory requirement for English language by-laws, nor was it necessary because the Church and its congregation conduct their affairs and worship services in Mandarin.

[95] Church counsel pointed out that the Corporations Act currently in force has no such requirement, although he assured the Court that if anticipated successor legislation contains such a requirement, the Church will of course comply with the new requirement.

[96] I find on this issue that the Applicants have failed to establish a legal obligation on the Church as alleged regarding the by-laws. I note further that, as a matter of the right to a fair hearing and access to justice, there is no question that the Applicants themselves speak Mandarin as their first language, and that they were able to bring this Application to court with legal representation utilizing the English language translation filed and relied on in their submissions to the Court.

[97] I therefore decline to grant the relief requested relating to the translation of the Church’s by-laws.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

[98] A reviewing court’s involvement in a membership dispute arising within an incorporated religious organization is confined to an inquiry as to whether that corporation’s decisions were lawfully made pursuant to its by-laws and not in violation of natural justice.

[99] The extensive record filed on the Application, and the submissions made by the Applicants at the hearing before me, establish that the Applicants had for many years before the Termination Decision strongly opposed, and to date continue to disagree with, the manner in which the Church conducted its religious worship services and teaching, allocated its financial and other resources, and chose particular individuals to lead the congregation. Those disagreements are at the heart of the practice of religious freedoms in a religious organization, which fall outside the jurisdiction of the court.

[100] For the reasons given, the Applicants have failed to discharge their onus. The Respondent’s Termination Decision is upheld. The Application is dismissed with costs.

COSTS

[101] At the Court’s direction, costs outlines were filed by the parties in court at the conclusion of submissions, as were offers to settle made by Applicants.

[102] These materials were reviewed after the Application was decided and the above reasons written.

[103] The Church Respondent was fully successful and is entitled to costs of the Application.

[104] I have considered the law and relevant factors regarding costs in civil matters, including efficient use of parties’ and court resources and proportionality between the steps taken and matters in issue.

[105] I find that the Church membership issues in the application were of significant importance to the Applicants and to the Respondent.

[106] The Respondent did not provide any offers to settle. Its Cost outline is reasonable with respect to hours and rates charged. Its partial indemnity costs are $14,931.00 plus HST. From that amount I deduct $1,659.00 for fees of attendance at undertakings motion. I make the deduction on the basis that Trimble J. has previously ordered the Applicants to pay $5,000 to the Respondent for that motion. That separate order was made in 2021 and independently enforceable.

[107] Fees at partial indemnity rate are $13,272.00 plus HST, a total of $14,997.36.

[108] The Church claims over $19,000.00 in disbursements, of which $10,398.00 is claimed for “translation of documents”. The evidence filed in the application record and responding record indicated that different individuals made translations from Mandarin to English of by-laws and of the termination and warning letters to the Applicants.

[109] The Respondent did not submit with its cost outline any receipts or proof of expenditure of funds for translation, nor did it give a description of the specific translation services engaged. In the absence of substantiation of such a large expenditure, this disbursement is disallowed.

[110] The Respondent’s remaining disbursements, totaling $6,424.00, cover court reporter and transcript fees and routine filing and other disbursements. All disbursements are reasonable and are allowed except for the court fee of $320.00 for the “undertakings motion”. As referenced above, a separate cost award in the Respondent’s favour was made for the undertakings motion, so the court fee is removed to prevent double recovery of that amount.

[111] The remaining $6,104.00 in disbursements claimed by the Respondent are allowed, plus HST, for a disbursement total of $6,897.52.

[112] Total costs, combining fees and disbursements as above, inclusive of HST, are therefore $14,997.36 plus $6,897.52, for a total of $21,894.88.

[113] This amount is fair and reasonable in the circumstances. In reaching this conclusion I note that the costs I have ordered are far less than the costs the Applicants asked the Court to award to them if they were successful, which their own costs outline showed to be $41,318.87.

[114] The costs ordered are therefore an amount which I find that the Applicants could reasonably have expected to pay if unsuccessful in their Application.

[115] I also take into account that the Respondent is a non-profit religious organization, and that the funds expended to respond to the Application represented a significant allocation of its resources.

[116] In this regard, I also note that the Respondent did not summarily or quickly terminate the Applicants’ membership. To the contrary, the record, particularly the tone and content of hundreds of pages of communications sent by the Applicants to the Church leaders, demonstrates that the Respondent’s representatives were most forbearing, over many years, in tolerating many forms of challenging and overtly disrespectful conduct by the Applicants.

[117] Costs fixed in the amount of $21,894.88 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and taxes.

ORDER

[118] The Application is dismissed.

[119] Costs fixed in the amount of $21,894.88, payable by the Applicants to the Respondent within 60 days.

[120] Order to issue accordingly. Approval by Applicants of draft order as to form and content dispensed with.

“Original signed by”

McSweeney J.

Released: June 9, 2022

COURT FILE NO.: CV-19-00004975-0000

DATE: 2022 06 09

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

YAN HUO and RAN XU

Applicants

and -

MISSISSAUGA CHINESE CHRISTIAN CHURCH

Respondent

REASONS FOR DECISION

ON APPLICATION

McSWEENEY J.

Released: June 9, 2022

Huo v. Mississauga Chinese Christian Church, 2022 ONSC 3107

Case Summary

NATURE OF THE APPLICATION

THE APPLICATION HEARING ON JANUARY 19, 2022:

LEGAL FRAMEWORK

Relevant by-Laws:

THE CHURCH’S EVIDENCE

IS TERMINATION DECISION NULL AND VOID FOR IMPROPER COMPOSITION OF THE DECISION-MAKING BODY?

IS TERMINATION DECISION NULL AND VOID FOR FAILURE TO INVESTIGATE AND VERIFY FACTS?

were the applicants entitled to an oral hearing?

WERE THE APPLICANTS ENTITLED TO AN OFFICIAL ENGLISH LANGUAGE VERSION OF THE CHURCH’S BY-LAWS?

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

COSTS

ORDER

Judge

Counsel

Parties

Areas of Law

Fact Patterns

Financial Outcomes

Issues

Statutory Provisions 1

Legal Tests 1

Legislation 1