The Supreme Court of British Columbia has dismissed the claims of a former Hindu priest who sought a declaration of interest in a temple property and damages for wrongful dismissal from the Shree Mata Bhameshwari Durga Devi Society.
Justice Lamb found that the priest, R.S., had no enforceable interest in the property located in Surrey, B.C., and that his dismissal by the Society was justified due to admitted sexual misconduct.
Property ownership dispute
In 2008, R.S. identified two lots near 80th Avenue and 123rd Street in Surrey as a potential site for the Society’s temple. He reached out to his friend and fellow devotee, Y.P., and to J.S.J., another devotee residing in Houston, B.C., to discuss purchasing the property. The three agreed to contribute funds towards the down payment, with each contributing approximately $100,000.
The property was purchased in Y.P.’s name, who secured financing for the balance of the $1 million purchase price. In 2018, Y.P. transferred the property to the Society but remained responsible for the outstanding mortgage.
R.S. and the estate of J.S.J. sought to undo the transfer, relying on a trust agreement signed in 2008 (the “Trust Agreement”). They argued that Y.P. held a two-thirds interest in the property in trust for them.
Intent to benefit the Society
Justice Lamb found that the contributors intended to purchase the property for the benefit of the Society, not as a personal investment. “I am satisfied that the Contributors donated the funds toward the purchase of the Property for the benefit of the Society,” the judge stated.
The court held that the Trust Agreement did not reflect the true agreement between the parties. It was intended as a reassurance that Y.P. would not use the property for his own purposes, rather than to establish personal ownership interests. The judge noted that the Trust Agreement bore “little if any resemblance to the real agreement between the Contributors.”
Employment and wrongful dismissal
R.S. also claimed damages for wrongful dismissal, alleging that the Society terminated his employment without just cause. The court found that R.S. was employed by the Society as a priest but concluded that his dismissal was justified due to admitted sexual misconduct.
In 2018, a devotee reported to the Society that R.S. had engaged in inappropriate sexual conduct. When confronted, R.S. admitted to touching the breasts of a devotee and suggested he had similar contact with “15 to 20 other women.” The Society suspended R.S. and reported the incident to the police.
Justice Lamb ruled that the Society had just cause for termination, stating: “I am satisfied that R.S.’s admitted misconduct … was sufficiently egregious to warrant dismissal.” The judge emphasized the fiduciary duty held by spiritual leaders, noting that “consent by the devotee to such sexual contact was not possible” due to the power imbalance.
Claims by S.R.
S.R., R.S.’s wife, also filed a claim against the Society for unpaid wages, alleging she was employed by the Society. The court dismissed her claim, finding that she was a volunteer rather than an employee.
Justice Lamb found inconsistencies in S.R.’s testimony and concluded that any services she provided were on a volunteer basis. “S.R. failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that she was employed by the Society,” the judge stated.
The court dismissed all claims brought by R.S., S.R., and the estate of J.S.J. against Y.P. and the Society. The defendants were awarded costs, subject to any adjustments that may be required.
“R.S.’s claim for wrongful dismissal is dismissed,” Justice Lamb concluded. “S.R.’s claim for wrongful dismissal is dismissed.”
For more information, see Sharma v Parmar, 2024 BCSC 2101 (CanLII).
