MUSLIM COUNCIL OF CALGARY v OSMAN, 2015 ABQB 720
1.2: Purpose and intention of these rules
3.8: Originating applications and associated evidence
The Muslim Council of Calgary (“MCC”) brought an Originating Application on behalf of the Muslim Association of Calgary (“MAC”) and the Muslim Community Foundation of Calgary (“MCFC”) seeking a Declaration that the MCC was the legitimate Board of Directors of MAC and MCFC, and an Order directing that a new Board of Directors be elected in accordance with an amendment to the Bylaws of MAC and MCC. The Application was resisted by individual members of the societies who argued, inter alia, that a Chambers Application on Affidavit evidence was not an appropriate forum to decide the issues, in part because the Respondents disputed that MCC had properly authorized the Action.
Justice Nixon held that the Action was appropriate for a Chambers Application as a Trial would only perpetuate the uncertainty, conflict and confusion between the parties and within the Muslim community, which would serve no one. Justice Nixon held that the concept of proportionality as set out in Hryniak v Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7 (CanLII), and which is enshrined in Rule 1.2, requires courts to attempt to come to a fair and just adjudication of the issues before them in a timely and effective manner which does not impose upon the parties unnecessary expense.
In the present case there was a serious issue of corporate governance which urgently needed to be determined and could be done on the basis of the evidence before the Court. In light of this, Justice Nixon held that despite the fact that the Respondents contested some of the facts of the Applicants, the issue could be resolved based on the record before the Court, and did not require a Trial or viva voce evidence. Justice Nixon reviewed the record, and granted the Order and declaration sought by the Applicants.View CanLII Details