The B.C. Court of Appeals rejected an appeal over a legal battle between factions vying for the leadership of the Sikh Temple in Penticton.
The Nov. 5 decision by the three Appeal Court Justices upheld the May decision in the B.C. Supreme Court that found in favour of one of the two factions of the temple's congregation.
The two groups, identified as the Bains Group and the Garcha Group, each filed a petition after the Penticton Sikh Temple and Indian Cultural Society’s annual general meeting and leadership vote in December of 2023, which appointed 22 directors to the society.
The Garcha Group accused the Bains Group of using non-members to impact the selection of directors, while the Bains Group accused the Garcha Group of changing officers of the society, the society’s registered office, the acclamation of some newly elected directors, and changing the locks on the temple’s front and office doors.
In the original May ruling, Justice Loo found that the actions by the Garcha Group were neither justified nor reasonable following the AGM.
“If [the Garcha Group] was unhappy about the outcome of the AGM, they could have taken other steps, such as these petitions. It instead resorted to ‘self-help’ steps which were unlawful,” reads the judgment.
The last time directors were chosen was in 2018, and members of both groups were acclaimed as directors at the 2023 meeting.
The judgment notes that the society conducted formal membership drives in 2016 and 2018 and that no drive or updated membership list had been created since 2018.
“As a result, by 2023, there were numerous people who were regular attendees at the temple but were not members of the society,” reads the judgment.
Both groups agreed that non-members cast votes and participated in the AGM. Under the Societies Act, non-members are not allowed to participate in a ballot-based election and vote.
However, Justice Loo found that even if, as claimed, up to 20 per cent of those at the meeting weren’t members, the fact that the directors were selected by acclamation meant that there was no formal vote made and the presence of non-members was a moot point.
It was agreed by both groups that the directors were elected by acclamation, although three later resigned.
“Further, there is no evidence that anyone protested the general idea that directors could be acclaimed or that anyone demanded an election by ballot,” reads the judgment. “In my view, the important point flowing from the evidence described above is that the acclamation was essentially carried out by consensus.”
A claim of improper notice for the meeting was also raised by the Garcha Group and dismissed.
Justice Loo did find that two non-members were acclaimed as directors and that they should either resign or become members.
Two other directors were also at odds, although the justice declined to invalidate their appointment, citing evidence given from both the chair of the AGM and the Garcha Group as to whether or not they had been added to the minutes after the meeting had concluded.
Following the May ruling, the Garcha Group launched an appeal, claiming that Justice Loo had erred in concluding that the acclamation of directors was not invalidated by a lack of sufficient notice regarding the election or the participation of non-members at the AGM.
The Garcha Group also claimed that Justice Loo had erred in finding its post-meeting conduct was unjustified and unreasonable, failing to deal with live issues concerning the conduct of the society’s affairs, and providing inadequate reasons for some of the conclusions that he reached.
The three justices that heard the appeal rejected every claim made by the Garcha Group and dismissed the appeal, with only a minor agreement on one point that nevertheless did not give grounds for an appeal.
"I agree with the Garcha Group that the judge’s reasons for finding its post‑meeting conduct unjustified and unreasonable are somewhat terse and minimal," reads the Nov. 5 decision. "Considered in the context of the record, the “what” and the “why” of the judge’s decision are discernible: the Garcha Group resorted to self-help measures after the AGM that failed to comply with the Society’s Bylaws and the requirements of the Societies Act. Accordingly, that conduct was unlawful and the judge was entitled to exercise his discretion in the manner that he did."
