Gill v. Pannu
Jasbinder Singh Gill
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Lawyer(s)

R.S. Arora

Rupinder Singh Pannu
Law Firm / Organization
Sorensen Smith LLP
Lawyer(s)

Daniel Sorensen

Gurdev Singh Randhawa
Law Firm / Organization
Unrepresented
Dalbir Kaur Randhawa
Law Firm / Organization
Unrepresented
Pannu Bros Holding Ltd.
Law Firm / Organization
Unrepresented
Pannu Bros Trucking Ltd.
Law Firm / Organization
Sorensen Smith LLP
Lawyer(s)

Daniel Sorensen

Abbotsford Banquet & Conference Centre Ltd.
Law Firm / Organization
Unrepresented
3378 Laurel Holdings Inc.
Law Firm / Organization
Unrepresented
Maiken Andersen
Law Firm / Organization
Unrepresented
Ronald A. Kelly
Law Firm / Organization
Unrepresented
Baker Newby LLP
Law Firm / Organization
Unrepresented
John Klassen
Law Firm / Organization
Unrepresented
  • Facts: Jasbinder Singh Gill alleges that Rupinder Singh Pannu mismanaged the affairs of Abbotsford Banquet and Conference Centre Ltd. (ABCC), misappropriated funds from the sale of ABCC’s main asset (a banquet hall), and diverted these funds to his own property and another business. Pannu allegedly failed to record these transactions, denied Gill access to financial records, and failed to conduct required corporate meetings .

  • Issue: The main legal issue revolves around claims of breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and the right to impose a constructive trust over properties allegedly bought with funds from ABCC. The central question is whether Pannu’s actions entitled Gill to claims over the involved properties or compensation .

  • Court's Ruling: The court decided to cancel the certificates of pending litigation (CPLs) registered against the properties by Gill, finding the claims tied to real estate interests to be weak and insufficiently substantiated. It ruled that the ongoing registration of the CPLs caused undue hardship and was unjustified, as damages would provide adequate relief .

  • Costs/Damages Awarded: The court awarded costs of the application to the applicants (Pannu and his associated entities), to be assessed at Scale B, payable immediately after assessment .

Supreme Court of British Columbia
37894
Corporate & commercial law
Defendant