Grewal v. Grewal

2013 BCSC 1183 Grewal v. Grewal

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Grewal v. Grewal, 2013 BCSC 1183 Date: 20130703 Docket: S110167 Registry: New Westminster Between: Harbans Singh Grewal Plaintiff And Harminder Singh Grewal and Zora Singh Grewal Defendants Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice Crawford Reasons re: Application Settling Terms of Order Counsel for Plaintiff: David Perry and Cornel Peana Counsel for Defendant, Harminder Singh Grewal: Douglas MacAdams, Q.C. and Marc Misner Counsel for Defendant, Zora Singh Grewal: Guy Holeksa and Renata Germann Place and Date of Trial/Hearing: New Westminster, B.C. May 9, 2013 and June 17, 2013 Place and Date of Judgment: New Westminster, B.C. July 3, 2013 [1] In these proceedings, I have given reasons for judgment September 2, 2011 (principal issues) and March 28, 2013 (accounting). [2] On May 9, 2013, the parties appeared before me ostensibly to settle the form of order, set a timetable for arguments on costs, and to argue the removal of the CPL on the berry farm. [3] Harbans put forward a number of arguments about inaccuracies in the transcription of the reasons for March 28, 2013 and I responded with a memorandum to counsel, dealing with those matters on May 13, 2013. [4] Harbans then indicated he would be bringing on an application for mistrial which would need to be dealt with before any argument as to costs or removal of the CPL. [5] Given the

concerns of the berry farm owners, Harminder and Zora had about the bank foreclosing on the farm, I directed the matter come back before me on May 29, 2013. [6] Harbans then made his argument as to there being a mistrial. The mistrial argument occupied much of the day and then Harminder started his application for special costs of the trial concerning the berry farm. [7] I directed the matter come back before me on June 17 and 18. [8] On the morning of June 17, I provided written reasons dismissing the mistrial application. [9] However, on the June 7, 2013, Harbans filed written argument regarding the form of order being proposed by Harbans and Zora, arguing there were ambiguities, errors in the assessment of evidence, and error in the use of consistent evidential standards. [10] I received the written argument together with responsive written argument from Zora and Harminder. [11] I have now had the opportunity of reviewing Harban's arguments which list 12 complaints regarding the reasons for judgment, but do not directly attack any wording of the proposed form of judgment. [12] Zora and Harminder submit that Harbans argument over the order, like the mistrial application by Harbans, is evidence of delaying tactics. [13] Zora provided a spreadsheet on May 13, 2013 to all counsel giving a breakdown of the various claims asserted by each of the brothers against the other and the

resulting amounts that would be owed to each other arising from the issues in the berry farm case. [14] Mr. MacAdams (for Harminder) agreed with the spreadsheet and the form of order, but there was no response from Harbans' counsel. [15] A further communication on May 27, 2013 was not replied to. On May 28, 2013 Harbans and Zora's counsel spoke with Harbans' counsel, and he advised there was no disagreement as to the form of order. [16] Counsel for Harminder and Zora therefore complain of the altered stance reflected in Harban's written submission filed June 7, 2013. [17] In the written submission of Harbans, 12 points are raised under various headings and I will deal with them, numbering them 1-12: 1. re: para. 10 - the alleged error is found in the duplication of index sheets in exhibit 1 and exhibit 2 and is shortly answered by reference to exhibit 1, tabs 1, 10, 11, 12 and 16 and there is no uncertainty as alleged. 2. re: para. 14 - this is an allegation that there is no column 10 in the spreadsheet. The Scott Schedules are in columns and the figure under column 10 is in fact $12,981.60 for 2010 and not $12,986.60 as I stated in my reasons. There is no ambiguity. 3. re: para. 36 - this refers to outstanding 2007 labour charges unpaid from an earlier judgment of Arnold-Bailey J. My reference read "item number 168" which should read "items 1, 6, 8". Those total $39,192.82

which I allowed at $30,000.00. There is no ambiguity. Items 4, 5 and 6 are said to be errors in assessment of evidence. 4. re: para. 13(a). I note this is not an assessment of evidence but rather is part of my summary of Zora's submissions on the farm accounting from August 28, 2006 to December 31, 2006 at paras. 65-71 of Zora's submissions, where Zora disputed Harbans' claim for a payment made July 31, 2006 of $54,781.86 for cost of labour. It is plain that Prince Ventures' invoiced Prince Farms for labour for July 2006 by Zora's family, Harbans' family and other labourers. While listing hours worked, there was no evidence of any payment to the labourers which were said to be Harban's and Zora's families which included their infant children, and some other labourers. As well, there are two cheques in identical amounts, one drawn on the four person account of the joint family unit and one on Harbans' and Jasbir's account. The four person account cheque appears to have been used on the posting to the general journal but it was Harbans' and Jasbir's cheque that was cashed, evidence again of Harbans' money management for the two integrated families. 5. re: para.

36. Inherent in exhibit 79 are the invoices 1, 6 and 8 and I have already dealt with the fact that the invoices presented at $39,192.82 were cut back to $30,000 (see item 3.). 6. re: paragraph 78. In my reasons, I had reduced alleged cash sales by Harbans in 2006 in the amount of $60,858 to $20,000. Harbans' seeks credit for monies recorded in the general ledger of cash sales of $9,510.30. In Harbans' previous written submissions, he had made no reference to this ledger and nor was any evidence led as to the basis for the ledger entries. Items 7 -12 allege inconsistent evidential requirements.

7. This is a reference to para. 10 again, when I was summarizing Zora's submissions on the farm accounting. As I note in my reasons, I accepted the positions of the parties generally on contributions recorded in the books of account but then there was a focus on matters that required substantiation. There was no previous challenge to Harminder's contributions and I see no basis for the allegation.

8. The reference is para. 11 of the reasons, which again, is part of Zora's submissions. Zora responded to this which and I do not intend to repeat what Zora argued in para. 39 of his submissions November 13, 2012 or his written response to this issue, save that his argument is of substance and I accept it. It is also illustrative of Harbans' control of the monies flowing in and out of the integrated family unit. 9. re: para. 13(a) - this has already been dealt with in item 4. above. 10. re: para. 13(b) - this item relates to labour performed in June 2006, and invoiced on August 1, 2006, in the name of Harminder, Zora and S. Singh, and is part of the summary of argument. Harbans argues there is evidence to substantiate it but Zora disputes it noting there is no proof anyone was paid and there is duplication with other bills. There is no error as alleged. 11. re: para. 14(c) - which is again, I note, Zora's submissions regarding the time period January 2007-February 2008 and references charges of Prince Electric under exhibit 2, tabs 104, 105 and 106. The evidence was the invoices were prepared in 2008. Given that Harminder and Zora had taken over the control of the farm, the suggestion that Harbans' was working on the farm after July 19, 2007 was disputed. Nor, I note, did Harbans respond to this issue in his reply of December 18, 2007 to Zora's submissions. 12. re: para.

36. This repeats arguments under number 3 and 5 above and were not questioned at trial or in previous argument of Harbans. [18] Accordingly, I find no merit to any of the arguments advanced by Harbans regarding the form of order, insofar as it affects the first six terms of the form of order. [19] Upon review, this application to "settle the order" is in my view, without merit. [20] No objection was taken to Mr. Holeska's spreadsheet of May 13, 2013. The only purpose one can see is Harban's intention to delay the costs application and the removal of the CPL. Harminder and Zora are entitled to special costs for this application. [21] Paragraph 7 of the proposed order reads: The court reserves the right to rule with respect to the outstanding issues of costs. This court further orders that none of the above amounts are payable until after the level of costs has been determined and the costs have been assessed. [22] I am in agreement with the first sentence but I have reservations about the second. I have ordered payout of the outstanding creditors and these payments should be made forthwith. [23] Counsel have made their arguments regarding claims of Harminder and Zora to special costs on the trial of the berry farm legal issues and Harbans has responded. My ruling may be expected shortly. "The Honourable Mr. Justice Crawford"