Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Failure of the Applicant to pay a prior costs order of $33,265.90 and to take any further procedural steps, triggering the court’s discretion under Rule 57.03(2) and Rule 60.12 to stay or dismiss the application.
• Impact of non-attendance and non-participation by a self-represented litigant on the court’s assessment of whether the proceeding has effectively been abandoned and whether relief should proceed on the merits.
• Application of the RJR-MacDonald interlocutory injunction test at the earlier urgent motion stage, including findings of no serious issue to be tried, no irreparable harm, and a balance of convenience favouring the Respondents.
• Consideration of proportionality and fairness in costs, particularly where a not-for-profit religious corporation dependent on donations faces unpaid costs and prolonged uncertainty from outstanding litigation.
• Use of established factors under Rule 57.03(2) to address non-compliance with costs orders, including the need to avoid abuse of process and to enforce orders against self-represented parties on the same footing as represented parties.
• Fashioning a remedial structure that stays the proceeding and grants a final opportunity to pay outstanding costs, with automatic dismissal and further cost consequences if payment is not made within a fixed timeline.

Background and parties

This case arises from an internal governance dispute at the Hindu Maha-Sabha of Burlington and Oakville, a not-for-profit religious corporation referred to as “the Temple.” The Applicant, Ajai Rana, commenced an application under the Not-for-Profit Corporations Act, 2010 (Ontario), challenging the Temple’s leadership and election processes. The Respondents are several individual office-holders or associated persons—Keshav Agnihotri, Jag Mohan Mainra, Pankaj Bhasin, Nilesh Patel, Neelam Sharma, and Snehal Katarey—as well as the Temple itself. The matter comes before Associate Justice Glick on a motion by the Respondents to stay and effectively dismiss the Applicant’s proceeding because of his failure to pay a substantial earlier costs award and his failure to move the case forward. At the time of this motion, the Applicant is self-represented and does not attend or participate, despite proper service and a prior adjournment granted to give him a final opportunity to appear.

Origins of the temple governance dispute

The underlying application focuses on the governance of the Temple under the Not-for-Profit Corporations Act, 2010. The Applicant seeks significant structural relief: an order dissolving the Executive Committee of the Temple; an order requiring the Temple to call an election to be supervised by an Independent Election Supervisor; and an order undoing any changes made by the current Executive Committee to the Temple’s constitution. The dispute is therefore rooted in corporate governance and member rights within a religious not-for-profit entity, centering on who controls the Temple, how elections are run, and whether changes to the constitution are legitimate. Although the later motion before Associate Justice Glick does not directly determine these governance claims, the viability of the entire proceeding now hinges on the Applicant’s compliance with earlier cost obligations and his willingness to prosecute the case.

Urgent motion and initial costs order

The procedural history includes an earlier urgent motion heard on July 9, 2025, before Justice Miller. At that time, the Applicant was initially represented by counsel, but the Respondents brought a threshold motion to remove that counsel because he had previously represented them in another application. Justice Miller agreed that the Applicant’s counsel was in a conflict of interest and ordered that he be removed from the record, leaving the Applicant self-represented for the balance of the urgent motion. In the urgent motion, the Applicant sought to restrain a Temple election scheduled for July 13, 2025, reinstatement of his membership, dissolution of the Election Committee, and delivery of a current membership list. Justice Miller considered only the request to restrain the July 13 election to be urgent; the other issues were left to be addressed later by way of a longer motion. Applying the RJR-MacDonald test for interlocutory injunctions, Justice Miller concluded there was no serious issue to be tried in relation to stopping the election, and she expressed serious concerns about the Applicant’s credibility. She found there was no irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience clearly favoured the Respondents, so the urgent motion was dismissed and the election was allowed to proceed. The associated relief concerning dissolution of the Election Committee and delivery of the membership list was treated as moot once the election was permitted to go ahead.

Costs awarded by Justice Miller and the Applicant’s inaction

Following dismissal of the urgent motion, Justice Miller awarded the Respondents costs of $33,265.90 in total for both the conflict/removal motion and the urgent injunction motion. She held that the costs incurred were proportionate to the complexity and importance of the proceeding, particularly in light of the Applicant bringing the matter on extremely short notice. The costs were ordered payable forthwith. After that order, the Respondents’ counsel sent multiple written requests to the Applicant—on seven different dates over the course of July, August, and September 2025—seeking payment of the awarded costs. While the Applicant responded to some of the emails, he did not address the subject of costs and did not make any payment. The record before Associate Justice Glick shows that the Applicant did not schedule the triage attendance that Justice Miller had contemplated for the remaining issues and, more broadly, took no further steps in the proceeding after July 2025. Effectively, the case remained dormant, with the unpaid costs order outstanding and the original governance claims not being advanced. Meanwhile, the Respondents assert that the Temple depends on donations and that the failure to pay costs has caused prejudice, though this assertion is made in an affidavit by an articling student and is not supported by independent financial evidence.

Motion to stay or dismiss for non-payment of costs

In light of the unpaid July 2025 costs order and the lack of progress in the case, the Respondents brought the present motion seeking to have the application dismissed or otherwise stayed until the costs are paid. When the motion first came on, the Applicant did not attend. Associate Justice Glick adjourned the matter to February 26, 2026 to provide the self-represented Applicant a final opportunity to be heard. Despite this accommodation, the Applicant again did not attend, and there were no submissions or evidence from him explaining any inability to pay costs, his current position on the litigation, or any ongoing interest in pursuing the merits of the application. The court notes the complete absence of evidence of impecuniosity or any other reason why the costs order could not be met. The fact that the disputed Temple election date has long passed, and the election has presumably taken place, also raises practical doubts as to what meaningful relief remains. On this record, the court infers that the Applicant has effectively abandoned the proceeding, even if there is no formal notice of discontinuance.

Court’s legal framework on enforcing costs orders

Associate Justice Glick analyzes the issue under Rule 57.03(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which gives the court discretion, where costs of a motion remain unpaid, to stay or dismiss the proceeding, strike a defence, or make such other order as is just. The court draws guidance from appellate authority, including Garrett v. Oldfield, which emphasizes that courts must balance the competing interests of the parties and consider all relevant factors when deciding whether to dismiss for non-payment of costs. The decision also relies on a structured list of factors from Allen v. Kumar, which discuss the risk of abuse of process if court orders are not enforced, the responsibility that accompanies the right of access to the courts, the limited role of impecuniosity as a shield for unreasonable litigation conduct, the need at times to bring finality to actions when orders are ignored, and the principle that self-represented litigants are entitled to fairness but not to exemptions from court orders or from costs consequences. Justice Glick further notes earlier decisions such as Baradaran v. Tarion Corporation and Dunning v. Colliers Macaulay Nicolls Inc., where courts stayed proceedings for non-payment of costs and, only after a final opportunity to comply, dismissed actions when payment was still not made. These authorities support a remedial approach that is firm but incremental: first a stay with a fixed opportunity to pay, then dismissal if non-compliance continues.

Application of the legal principles to the facts

On the evidence, the court finds no basis to excuse the Applicant from complying with the outstanding costs order. There is no affidavit or documentation establishing that he is unable to pay or that payment would be unduly burdensome. There is also no effort by the Applicant to advance his application in the many months since the urgent motion was decided. While some of the underlying relief has become moot because the election has already taken place, other governance-related remedies could, in theory, still be pursued, so the court assumes for balancing purposes that the remaining claim is at least potentially meritorious. Nonetheless, the Applicant’s complete non-participation in the present motion and his failure to address costs over many months weigh heavily in the discretionary analysis. Associate Justice Glick recognizes that the Applicant is self-represented and notes that this status led the court to grant an adjournment to give him a further chance to respond. However, the decision emphasizes that self-representation does not justify ignoring court orders or leaving the Respondents and the Temple exposed to indefinite litigation with unpaid costs hanging over the matter. Fairness to the Respondents, including a not-for-profit entity reliant on donations, requires that the costs order be enforced and that the litigation not be allowed to drift without consequence.

Final orders, successful party and financial consequences

Ultimately, the court fashions a structured remedy. First, the application is stayed under Rule 60.12 and Rule 57.03(2). The stay will only be lifted if the Applicant pays both the prior costs award of $33,265.90 plus post-judgment interest under the Courts of Justice Act, and the new costs award on this motion. Second, Associate Justice Glick awards the Respondents their costs of the present motion on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $12,880.21, slightly higher than the formal bill of costs to account for additional attendances. These new costs must also be paid within sixty days. Third, the order provides that if the Applicant fails to pay the combined costs within sixty days in full, his proceeding will be dismissed without further notice. The Respondents are given leave to move in writing, without notice, for a dismissal order upon filing an affidavit confirming non-payment; they may at that time also seek any remaining costs of the application not already addressed. If, however, the Applicant does pay the outstanding amounts, the parties are directed to schedule a case conference to set a timetable for the next steps in the application. In practical terms, the Respondents are the successful party in this motion, and the total quantified monetary amount ordered in their favour to date is $46,146.11 in costs ($33,265.90 from the earlier order plus $12,880.21 on this motion), together with post-judgment interest on the earlier costs figure and the possibility of further costs if the matter proceeds to a final disposition.