SANDHU v SIRI GURU NANAK SIKH GURDWARA OF ALBERTA

This decision concerned costs following the dismissal of an Originating Application challenging the 2021 election of the Executive Committee of the Siri Guru Nanak Sikh Gurdwara of Alberta (“Gurdwara”), for long delay. The Applicants, who were disqualified from running in the election, alleged breaches of procedural fairness and oppressive conduct by the Gurdwara and its leadership. The Action was commenced urgently in April 2021, involved extensive early litigation, including voluminous Affidavits, 11 days of questioning, and multiple interlocutory steps, but was ultimately not pursued to a merits hearing. After prolonged inactivity, the Action became moot following the 2024 election, and was dismissed under Rule 4.31 for inordinate delay on April 17, 2025. The Court then reserved its decision on the quantum of costs.

Applications Judge Birkett held that the Gurdwara, as the successful party, was entitled to costs payable jointly and severally by the individual Applicants. Rejecting both Schedule C tariff costs and full solicitor‑client indemnity, the Court awarded enhanced costs of $120,000 in fees (approximately 40-50% indemnity), plus disbursements and GST. The Court found that this level of costs appropriately reflected the complexity, intensity, and front‑loaded nature of the litigation, while remaining proportionate. The Applicants’ argument that the case raised important non‑monetary governance issues militating against enhanced costs was rejected, particularly given that the matter was abandoned before adjudication on the merits.

Applying Rules 10.29, 10.31, and 10.33, the Court emphasized that proportionality, not full indemnification, is the governing principle for costs awards, with litigation conduct being a central consideration. Enhanced costs were justified because the Applicants initiated urgent, complex proceedings, sought injunctive relief, required intensive case management, and imposed substantial costs on a non‑profit organization, only to later abandon the litigation. The Court relied on appellate guidance that misconduct, unnecessary delay, and abandonment after extensive litigation may warrant costs exceeding Schedule C. Comparative jurisprudence involving disputes within non‑profit and religious organizations supported an elevated but not full indemnity award. The decision underscores that even non‑monetary, governance‑based claims will attract significant costs consequences where proceedings are pursued aggressively and then left unresolved.