Grewal v. Grewal, (2016) 387 B.C.A.C. 265 (CA)

• Judge: Neilson, Goepel and Savage, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: June 03, 2016
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: (2016), 387 B.C.A.C. 265 (CA);2016 BCCA 237

Grewal v. Grewal (2016), 387 B.C.A.C. 265 (CA);

    668 W.A.C. 265

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2016] B.C.A.C. TBEd. JN.017

Harbans Singh Grewal (appellant/plaintiff S110167/respondent S17239) v. Harminder Singh Grewal (respondent/defendant S110167/petitioner S17239) and Zora Singh Grewal (respondent/defendant S110167/respondent S17239)

(CA42571)

Harbans Singh Grewal (respondent/plaintiff) v. Harminder Singh Grewal (appellant/defendant) and Zora Singh Grewal (respondent/defendant)

(CA42574)

Harbans Singh Grewal (appellant/plaintiff) v. Harminder Singh Grewal and Zora Singh Grewal (respondents/defendants)

(42579)

Harbans Singh Grewal (respondent/plaintiff) v. Harminder Singh Grewal (respondent/defendant) and Zora Singh Grewal (appellant/defendant)

(CA42580)

Zora Singh Grewal and Harinderpal Kaur Grewal (appellants/plaintiffs) v. Harbans Singh Grewal, Jasbir Kaur Grewal and Prabvir Singh Grewal (respondents/defendants)

(CA42581)

Zora Singh Grewal and Harinderpaul Kaur Grewal (respondents/plaintiffs) v. Harbans Singh Grewal, Jasbir Kaur Grewal and Parbvir Singh Grewal (appellants/defendants)

(CA42582)

Harbans Singh Grewal and Jasbir Kaur Grewal (respondents/plaintiffs) v. Zora Singh Grewal (appellant/defendant)

(CA42583)

Harbans Singh Grewal and Jasbir Kaur Grewal (appellants/plaintiffs) v. Zora Singh Grewal (respondent/defendant)

(CA42584; 2016 BCCA 237)

Indexed As: Grewal v. Grewal

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Neilson, Goepel and Savage, JJ.A.

June 3, 2016.

Summary:

Three brothers (Harbans, Zora and Harminder Grewal) disputed ownership of assets. The first of two primary disputes involved disagreements over the ownership and operation of a berry farm. The second involved a dispute between Zora and Harbans in which Zora claimed an equal partnership interest in assets, and sought an accounting. The assets included two residences, an electrical business, and an interest in two commercial buildings. Four actions arose: (1) Harminder's "partition action", seeking partition and sale of the farm; (2) Harbans' "farm action", claiming that he was entitled to a 74% interest in the farm property and an accounting of the farm's operations; (3) Harbans' "residences action", claiming Zora held his interest in the "Ridgeway" family residence on a resulting trust for Harbans and his wife, and seeking partition and sale of the property. Zora counterclaimed on the basis that he held a one-half beneficial interest in Ridgeway and in Harbans' family residence arising from his partnership with Harbans; and (4) Zora and Harinderpal's "partnership action" against Harbans, his wife and son, in which they claimed Harbans and Zora conducted businesses and accumulated assets as a partnership, and sought an order winding up the partnership and an accounting. The ensuing litigation engaged two judges.

The first judge heard the partition action, and a related application in the farm action to remove a certificate of pending litigation filed by Harbans. The judge directed partition of the farm property, approved the sale of Harbans' interest to Zora and Harminder, and awarded special costs against Harbans.

The second judge heard the farm action, the residences action, and the partnership action. The actions were heard together in an extended process that involved three serial trial judgments over four years. In the farm action, the judge found Harbans had a one-third interest in the farm property, and conducted an accounting of the farm's operations. In the residences action and partnership action, the judge rejected Zora's claim of partnership, but found Harbans owed him an ad hoc fiduciary duty. He distributed assets between them on that basis, but declined to order an accounting. Appeals arose: (1) Harbans' "process appeal" from the farm, partnership and residences actions on the ground that the "staged process" followed by the trial judge was unfairly prejudicial to him; (2) Zora's "partnership appeal", challenging the dismissal of his partnership claim; (3) Zora's "residences appeal", asserting that the trial judge failed to assess the legal and beneficial interests of each party in the two residences, thereby underestimating his share in each; (4) Zora's "farm appeal", challenging the dissolution date of the farm partnership and seeking increased costs; (5) "Harminder's costs appeal" brought against Harbans, seeking increased costs in the farm action; and (6) "Harbans' costs appeal", challenging the award of special costs made against him in the partition action.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal: (1) allowed Harbans' appeal from the partnership and from the residences action, and directed a new trial in those actions; (2) dismissed Harbans' appeal from the farm action; (3) allowed Zora's appeal from the partnership action and from the residences action; (4) dismissed Zora's appeal from the farm action; (5) dismissed Harminder's costs appeal in the farm action; and (6) dismissed Harbans' costs appeal in the partition action.

Courts - Topic 2101

Jurisdiction - Appellate jurisdiction - General - See paragraph 126.

Partnership - Topic 10

Partnership - What constitutes - See paragraphs 106 to 113.

Partnership - Topic 5043

Relations between partners - Right to inspection and accounting - Upon dissolution - See paragraphs 132 to 141.

Partnership - Topic 8003

Dissolution - General - Time of - See paragraphs 132 to 141.

Practice - Topic 5006

Conduct of trial - General principles - Reopening of trial to hear additional submissions or evidence - See paragraphs 69 to 88.

Practice - Topic 5013

Conduct of trial - General principles - Adjudicative fairness - See paragraphs 89 to 91, 95 to 105, 117 to 120.

Practice - Topic 7103

Costs - Party and party costs - Special orders - Conduct by party or counsel - See paragraphs 142 to 159, 167 to 179.

Practice - Topic 7110.6

Costs - Party and party costs - Special orders - Increase in scale of costs - Unjust result - See paragraphs 142 to 144, 160 to 166.

Counsel:

R.J. Kaardal, Q.C., for Harbans Singh Grewal, Jasbir Kaur Grewal and Prabvir Singh Grewal;

D. MacAdams, Q.C., for Harminder Singh Grewal;

G. Holeksa and R. Germann, for Zora Singh Grewal and Harinderpal Kaur Grewal.

These eight appeals were heard on December 2 and 3, 2015, at Vancouver, British Columbia, before Neilson, Goepel and Savage, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. In reasons written by Neilson, J.A., the Court delivered the following judgment, dated June 3, 2016.