A Vancouver woman who donated her $1.625-million home to charity and later argued the gift was made under duress has lost a legal challenge to get the property back.
B.C. Supreme Court Justice Christopher Giaschi found no evidence that Nasib Kaur Akalirai was pressured into transferring ownership of her East Vancouver home to the Satguru Ram Singh Satsang Charitable Foundation, as she claimed before the court.
“In other words, she entered into the deed of gift and transfer of her own free will,” the judge wrote in his decision. “She may now regret having done so, but that is not sufficient to invalidate the gift.”
Akalirai signed over the home at 2085 East 41st Ave. to the Sikh charity in May 2018 with the stipulation that she would be entitled to live in the property until her death.
She was 86 years old at the time and was provided a charitable receipt for the gift in the amount of $1,625,000, the court heard.
‘Like an ambush’
But in the spring of 2021, Akalirai asked the foundation to return the property, which prompted the charity to seek a declaration from the court on whether or not she had legal grounds to reclaim the home.
In addition to arguing that she was pressured into donating her property, Akalirai told the court she was not in a sound mental state at the time due to the death of her grandson in 2013.
She provided affidavits to the court saying she was “strongly encouraged” by her late son-in-law to donate the home to the charity, and said a director of the foundation visited her to discuss the donation in a meeting she described as “like an ambush.”
She also swore in the affidavit she was “oblivious to the implications of the transfer” and lacked the ability to comprehend the documents she signed, completing the gift.
But the judge rejected her account, preferring the evidence of Gurvinder Sandhu, Akalirai’s daughter, and Mehar Singh Sandhu, the director of the foundation who visited her.
‘Gifts are irrevocable’
Giaschi found that Akalirai’s son-in-law had no affiliation with the charity or its associated temple and no apparent motive to pressure her into making the donation.
The court found that Akalirai herself initiated discussions about donating the property, arranged the meeting with the charity representative and was repeatedly advised to obtain independent legal advice before proceeding with the gift.
The judge reviewed a signed certificate of independent legal advice from May 2018, in which Akalirai’s lawyer certified that he reviewed the transfer documents with her and explained their legal consequences, according to the decision.
The certificate stated Akalirai did not appear to be acting under “undue stress, fear, duress, improper understanding, undue influence or false inducement” when she signed the transfer. Akalirai signed the certificate confirming the documents were “thoroughly” reviewed with her, the decision said.
“In essence, gifts are non-refundable and irrevocable,” the judge ruled, noting that proof of duress in such cases relies wholly on the person asserting the claim.
“Put simply, there was no unlawful or illegitimate threat, physical compulsion, or coercion of the will that caused Ms. Akalirai to gift the property to the petitioner,” Giaschi wrote.
“She initiated the conversations regarding the donation. She pursued the donation. She obtained independent legal advice at the urging of the petitioner. The legal documents were fully explained to her by her lawyer and she signed the documents knowing their full legal effect,” he continued.
“In other words, she entered into the deed of gift and transfer of her own free will. She may now regret having done so, but that is not sufficient to invalidate the gift.”
