Mand v. Cheema
Gurdarshan Singh Mand
Law Firm / Organization
Kornfeld LLP
Lawyer(s)

Nils Preshaw

Jagpal Kaur Mand
Law Firm / Organization
Kornfeld LLP
Lawyer(s)

Nils Preshaw

Kuldip Singh Gill
Law Firm / Organization
Kornfeld LLP
Lawyer(s)

Nils Preshaw

Sukhminder Kaur Gill
Law Firm / Organization
Kornfeld LLP
Lawyer(s)

Nils Preshaw

Harjinder Singh Cheema
Cheema Brothers Trucking Ltd.
Cheema Bros. Transport Ltd.

Background:

  • Plaintiffs: Gurdarshan Singh Mand, Jagpal Kaur Mand, Kuldip Singh Gill, and Sukhminder Kaur Gill.
  • Defendants: Harjinder Singh Cheema, Cheema Brothers Trucking Ltd., and Cheema Bros. Transport Ltd.
  • Case Focus: A property at 6728-152nd Street, Surrey, BC, owned by Harjinder Cheema. Plaintiffs claimed a beneficial interest, alleging Mr. Cheema held it as trustee.

Legal Arguments/Issues:

  • Will-Say Statements: Plaintiffs sought detailed will-say statements from five non-party witnesses (Rajpal Cheema, Satpal Cheema, Alamjeet Cheema, Raj Binpal, and Swarn Sekhon) and a list of additional defense witnesses. The court emphasized that will-say statements must summarize anticipated evidence substantively.
  • Procedural Context: The case experienced delays and extensions, increasing from 25 to 95 days. The court issued orders to ensure timely exchange of will-say statements.
  • Legal Principles: Referenced Rule 1-3 and Rule 12-2(9)(g) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules, emphasizing just, speedy, and proportionate proceedings. Cited cases highlighted the need for detailed will-say statements for trial efficiency and fairness.

Court Decision:

  • The court ordered the defendants to provide detailed will-say statements by July 19, 2024, addressing deficiencies.
  • For additional witnesses related to the 16th Avenue Properties, defendants were to notify plaintiffs within 24 hours of plaintiffs closing their case and provide detailed will-say statements within 72 hours.
  • Costs of the application were ordered to be costs in the cause.

Total Costs/Awards:

  • No specific monetary award or costs mentioned. The ruling focused on procedural compliance and case management.
Supreme Court of British Columbia
S205263
Real estate
Plaintiff