Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The court examined whether a 2018 deed of gift transferring a Vancouver property was procured through duress.
   
• Ms. Akalirai claimed she was pressured by her deceased son-in-law, Gurnam Sandhu, to donate her home to the petitioner.
   
• Conflicting affidavit evidence from multiple family members and a former director of the petitioner required credibility findings.
   
• A certificate of independent legal advice, signed before the transfer was completed, played a central role in the court's assessment.
   
• Justice Giaschi applied established duress principles requiring an illegitimate threat and coercion of the will.
   
• No order as to costs was made, since neither the petitioner nor the Province sought them.
   

Facts of the case

On May 10, 2018, Nasib Kaur Akalirai executed a deed of gift transferring her interest in a property at 2085 East 41st Avenue, Vancouver, to the Satguru Ram Singh Satsang Charitable Foundation, a registered charity and registered society under the Societies Act. The transfer was registered on May 24, 2018, and the petitioner has paid all property expenses since that date. A charitable donation receipt in the amount of $1,625,000 was issued to Ms. Akalirai on February 12, 2019. Under the terms of the gift, Ms. Akalirai was permitted to continue residing in the property until her death. In the spring of 2021, she asked the petitioner to return the property, prompting the petitioner to seek declarations from the court as to whether a legal basis existed for doing so. The respondents to the petition were Ms. Akalirai and the Province of British Columbia, the latter appearing through the Attorney General under its parens patriae responsibility for charitable activities. Although Ms. Akalirai had initially also pleaded undue influence and lack of mental capacity, by the time of the hearing she relied solely on the argument that the gift was invalid due to duress.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

This matter did not turn on a specific statutory provision or contractual clause but on established common-law principles governing gifts and the defence of duress. The court referred to Doukhobor Heritage Retreat Society #1999 v. Vancouver Foundation, 2020 BCCA 80, for the principle that gifts are non-refundable and irrevocable once made, and that a donor cannot retract or alter the terms of a completed gift. On duress, the court drew on B.P.P.C. v. G.M.M., 2004 BCSC 540, and R.P. v. British Columbia (Director of Child, Family and Community Services), 2015 BCSC 2302, for the principle that duress ordinarily requires a threat of unlawful or illegal action compelling the innocent party to act. The court also applied the summary of duress principles in Gorup-Paule v Palmatier, 2024 BCSC 353, which sets out relevant factors including whether the person protested, had an alternative course open to them, received independent advice, or took steps to avoid the contract once the duress ceased. Finally, Stein v. Schommer, 2006 BCSC 1551, was cited for the principle that the burden of proving duress rests on the party asserting it.

Reasoning and analysis

Faced with conflicting affidavit evidence, Justice Giaschi preferred the evidence of Mehar Singh Sandhu, a former director of the petitioner, and Gurvinder Sandhu, Ms. Akalirai's daughter, over that of Ms. Akalirai herself. The court rejected Ms. Akalirai's claim that she had been pressured by her son-in-law, Gurnam Sandhu, finding that he had no association with the petitioner or its associated temple and therefore no apparent motive to press her to make the gift. By contrast, the court found that Ms. Akalirai and her family had a longstanding connection to the petitioner and its temple. The court made specific findings of fact that Ms. Akalirai herself initiated the donation, that the meeting at her daughter's home was not an "ambush" but one she arranged, that she was advised to take her time and obtain independent legal advice, and that she did so before signing the deed of gift and transfer. A certificate of independent legal advice dated May 24, 2018, signed by lawyer Ghulam Murtaza and by Ms. Akalirai, confirmed that the documents were reviewed with her and that she did not appear to sign under undue stress, fear, duress, improper understanding, undue influence, or false inducement. Applying the duress framework, the court found no unlawful or illegitimate threat, physical compulsion, or coercion of the will. Ms. Akalirai had pursued the donation, obtained independent legal advice, and understood the legal effect of the documents she signed. The court also noted that no case law was identified supporting the proposition that a third party's conduct could constitute duress on the facts alleged.

Ruling and overall outcome

Justice Giaschi concluded that Ms. Akalirai had wholly failed to prove that the gift and transfer were vitiated by duress, and held that the gift of the property to the Satguru Ram Singh Satsang Charitable Foundation was legal and valid. The petitioner was the successful party. As the petitioner and the Province were not seeking costs, no order as to costs was made.