Kaldep Singh Gidda: that's not my rotten sagging mossy pole!

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

Meet Kaldep Singh Gidda. His friends call him “Kal”. He owns and runs a trailer park. And he will have nothing to do with rotten filthy sagging mossy poles.

That’s power-line poles, just to be clear.

And it’s all nicely documented in this brand new British Columbia Supreme Court decision:

• Gidda v. Hirsch, 2014 BCSC 1286: http://canlii.ca/t/g814l

Kal’s pole aversion led him into conflict with the British Columbia Safety Authority [“BCSA”]. In March of 2011 BCSA inspectors found rotten power line poles on Kal’s trailer park, the so very tastefully named “OK Motel & Mobile Home Park”. Kal was told to replace the poles, but responded with delays, arguments they weren’t his poles, and in general – screw off, BCSA.

Over a year later when Kal did try to fix a pole he instead knocked it down: para. 18. His tenant paid the bill to get a replacement: para. 18. Thanks, Kal.

Kal sent the BCSA a “fee schedule” for “services/costs incurred” in dealing with the BCSA: para 22. Thanks, Kal.

By the summer of 2013 BCSC had fined Kal a couple times, even though Kal continued to wave his fee schedule. Go Kal Go!

Ultimately Kal’s tenants simply hired an electrician to get around Kal’s Rotten Poles: para. 34. Thanks, Kal.

That’s all preamble – now we get to the Gidda v. Hirsch lawsuit itself. Kal sued a couple of the BCSA workers to enforce his fee schedule and for a bunch of alleged torts (para. 32):

On August 9, 2013, the plaintiffs launched this action seeking $3,980 in fees arising from fee schedule, $75,000 in general damages and $75,000 in damages for negligence, harassment, intimidation, trespass and/or nuisance.

The Defendants asked the Court to throw out this garbage lawsuit – and it did.

The chief point of interest here is the fee schedule claim, though the others were equally defective. Associate Chief Justice Cullen cites Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 for the proposition that “fee schedule” type foisted unilateral agreements have no legal effect and comments at paras. 84, 87:

… It is simply a nonsensical concoction designed to hinder and harass those against whom such claims are made.

… The fee schedule as I noted is a fictional claim. It has no basis in law or logic and has been thoroughly discredited in Meads v. Meads, supra, and other decisions referenced in that judgment. The plaintiffs’ pursuit of such a claim meets the definition of “reprehensible conduct” referred to by the authorities as a basis for special costs.

Cullen A.C.J. orders 50% special elevated costs against Kal for being a jerk and filing what is in part a garbage lawsuit. A couple claims receive a more generous evaluation (para. 89):

The claims based on trespass, nuisance and negligence, although fatally deficient, do not carry such a pejorative connotation and may be seen as a misguided attempt to right a perceived wrong. I will not order special costs in relation to that aspect of the case …

And with that, adios Kal.

So, is this an OPCA litigant or not? It’s kind of hard to say. One hint is that Kal spelled his name in the lawsuit in this way: Kaldep Singh: Gidda. Ah ha – a surplus colon, which is a strong hint.

Beyond that, when I started digging I didn’t find a lot. Kal’s B.C. Courts Online record shows that he is on a nearly annual basis is ticketed for driving without a seatbelt. Go Kal – that’ll show The Man! He has a mess of civil actions but nothing bounced out at me and those don’t seem to lead to any reported judgments.

He does however have a recent Tax Court of Canada judgment:

• Gidda v. The Queen, 2013 TCC 190: http://canlii.ca/t/fzdm6

along with his brother Neelam Gidda, the Sunrise Vineyards Ltd., and Gidda Bros. Orchards Ltd. Kal represented the bunch in relation to 2003-2004 tax reassessments. This was an unsuccessful application for an appeal of the CRA 2003-2004 reassessment. Kal said he personally went to the Penticton CRA office and handed in the appeals in May of 2011. That’s odd, because the CRA had no record of that: para. 3.

Then Kal explained he was horribly confused but the multiplicity of government and court agencies!

Mr. Gidda claims he did not know there was a difference between the CRA and the Tax Court of Canada, and did not know where to file, though he did acknowledge that he had seen the information sheet the CRA sends out to taxpayers, indicating how to appeal. He also had an accounting firm assist with what he called the first appeal: he was to deal with the rest of the appeals.

Except that the CRA showed Kal had already made an acquaintance with the Tax Court of Canada:

Mr. Gidda stated in his Affidavit that he had no prior dealings with the Tax Court of Canada, yet the Respondent produced two Tax Court of Canada judgments, one in which Mr. Gidda was the Appellant and the other in which he acted as agent. The Crown also provided a Federal Court order, effectively ordering Mr. Gidda to be cooperative with the CRA.

Oops.

And he was a dick in his dealings with the CRA:

A review of CRA officers’ diaries, including Ms. Lesnoski own notations, make it clear that Mr. Gidda did not always accept mailed notifications from the CRA, did not answer calls, and at one point, refused to allow CRA officers on his property. It was also clear that Mr. Gidda had a number of matters on the go with CRA, not just the Appeals in issue.

And in court:

Mr. Gidda presented in Court as uncooperative, vague and evasive: at times his evidence was contradictory and outright incorrect. He was initially not even prepared to give evidence as the Court did not have his religion’s equivalent of the Bible, and he refused to affirm. He also objected to the Respondent providing its authorities the morning of the hearing, requesting an adjournment. I found his attitude obstructionist and uncooperative. I allowed Mr. Gidda to have a friend sit beside him for moral support, though it became clear that his friend was really directing Mr. Gidda.

Well, at least the CRA didn’t have to deal with Kal’s flaccid, rotten, sagging, mossy poles.

Kal had a bunch of arguments that the court should extend its deadline (it can’t), that mailing something to the CRA also mails it to the Tax Court (no, they’re separate), and that if the CRA knew Kal had made a mistake it should tell him. This appears to have made Justice Miller irritated:

... the Appellant argued the CRA had an obligation to advise the Appellant that the Appeal had been improperly filed and failure to do so cannot deprive the Appellant of his day in Court. This is akin to the argument that the Courts are bound by the actions or advice of the CRA. We are not. It is well established that if the CRA proffers incorrect advice to a taxpayer, and the taxpayer relies on that advice to his detriment, that does not bind the Tax Court of Canada as to how to determine the correctness of an assessment. There may be avenues for the taxpayer to pursue, but asking the Tax Court of Canada to base its judgment on incorrect CRA advice is not one of them. While this may garner some sympathy, it cannot override the clear wording of the legislation.

Last, Kal said that the TCC had extended the filing limitation deadline in the past in the case of a Ms. Hickerty who had mailed her appeal to the Tax Court, but had the wrong address. Justice Martin suspected this was not a correct argument, but in any case an extension of that kind should only operate where the taxpayer made a reasonable effort throughout.

However, that did not apply here. Kal was not reasonable. Kal was a jerk:

[12] For several reasons, I have concluded Mr. Gidda was neither diligent nor reasonable such that, even if I accepted Justice Boyle’s approach in Hickerty, Mr. Gidda does not fall within this saving proposition. I am not prepared to suspend any time in calculating the one year limitation for the following reasons.

[13] Firstly, Mr. Gidda presented as evasive and uncooperative. I have serious doubts whether the August 20 alleged letter of appeal was even ever received by the CRA. If Mr. Gidda treated the CRA, as his attitude in Court might suggest he would have, I have serious doubts about a good deal of what Mr. Gidda had to say actually occurred between him and the CRA.

[14] Second, Mr. Gidda was aware of how to appeal. I simply do not believe him when he says he did not understand there was a difference between the Tax Court of Canada and the CRA. He acknowledged receiving the information package from CRA indicating how to appeal. He had been in the Tax Court of Canada twice before. He had an accountant looking at matters for him. It is unreasonable in these circumstances to suggest there was any real mistaken belief of where to file.

[15] Thirdly, and importantly, unlike Ms. Hickerty, he did not attempt to file with the Tax Court of Canada.

[16] Finally, he did not act diligently as he had ongoing communications with the CRA, though never evidently asked into his Appeal. Also, when the CRA attempted to contact him, he would avoid them. Had he acted reasonably, returned calls and generally cooperated, he would have found out within the one year and 90 day period that no appeals had been validly filed. He did not so act.

And jerks don’t get to appeal their reassessments. Nice knowing you, Kal.

How much did the Giddas owe? Not sure, but looking at the Federal Courts database I found Neelam Gidda and Kaldep Singh Gidda have outstanding and unpaid Income Tax Act tax certificates from 2009 and 2012. The Federal Court action mentioned in the Miller judgment appears to be this file:

• T-1086-07 - THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE v. KALDEP GIDDA

It has a written but unpublished judgment so I suspect one could find out just what Kal argued.

So, what else did I find out about Kal. Well, he and his brother Nirmal own the Mt. Boucherie Family Estate Winery in West Kelowna (http://mtboucheriewinery.com/). It appears this is a branch of or is associated with Sunrise Vineyards (http://sherbrookeliquor.ca/mt-boucherie ... ztraminer/). That property was subsequently sold in 2010 (http://www.vinesmart.com/wine/Real_Esta ... h_Columbia), I think the listing indicates the price was $3.85 million.

Kal describes himself in these glowing terms:

Kal Gidda

Proprietor, Viticulturist/Farmer

Born in Kaluwal Kotla, India, Kal Gidda moved to West Kelowna at a young age where he attended elementary and high school in Westbank. He engaged in post-secondary studies in business administration and heavy duty mechanics but eventually followed the family business into wine and viticulture.

Kal's career has seen him work throughout the Okanagan Valley, growing grapes from north to south. He loves the variety and diversity that comes with farming and growing grapes; every day is different. Kal thoroughly enjoys the process of winemaking and his essential role in supporting the path of the grape from the soil to the bottle. When not out in the vineyard Kal enjoys spending time with family and friends and playing hockey.

Kal is also a political kook, being one of two candidates ever run by the British Columbia Citizens Alliance Now party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Co ... liance_Now). He ran for election once in 2001, and came dead last. I have not been able to identify what the Citizens Aliance Now party was all about.

My hunch is Kal is a full fledged OPCA litigant - we just haven't seen all the relevant paperwork yet. His tax issues fall smack in the period of peak Detaxer/Poriskyite activity, and he's in the correct location. We have a fee schedule, and a surplus colon. Proof? No, but suspicious.

So that’s it for Kal. For now. Until the CRA forecloses on your vineyard and then perhaps we'll see you back in the British Columbia courts as you perhaps will deploy Poriskyite absurdities? And maybe even a fee schedule or two?

Jerk.

SMS Möwe

[Burnaby49]

Be fair! He did better than his British Columbia Citizens Alliance Now running mate. From Wikipedia;

The BC Citizens Alliance Now (BC CAN) was a minor political party in British Columbia, Canada. It nominated two candidates in the 2001 British Columbia election

Kal Gidda placed last in a field of 6 candidates in the riding of Penticton-Okanagan Valley, winning 522 votes (2.1% of the total).

Bill Forsyth placed last in a field of 7 candidates in the riding of Bulkley Valley-Stikine, winning 62 votes (0.47% of the total).

The party did not nominate any candidates in the 2005 election. It was de-registered by Elections BC in December 2007.

As far as the party itself is concerned I don't remember them Obviously no reason why anybody would. No active website but I found the remnants of their defunct website (http://www.bccitizensalliancenow.com) on Wayback Machine. They seem to have been a small government, low tax party, if you can call it a party. Our two losers seem to be the only directing minds. No specific reference to where they fell on the left/right of the political spectrum. From their June 10th 2001 website posting;

Yesterday is history.

Unchangeable--to be learned from.

We deal in the Now, to build a better tomorrow!

British Columbia Citizens Alliance Now (BCCAN) is the newest party on the British Columbia political scene. We were formed in response to the demand from the people of British Columbia for political reform. Other political parties just talk about this and pay it lip service. We are going to do something about it!

At BCCAN we stand for a smaller and more accountable government. Government is becoming "big business". There is just too much Government and it is too top heavy. We pay too much money in taxes for the services that we are receiving. We need to reduce taxes so that we can afford food, shelter and clothing and provide the stimulus to boost our economy. The taxes that we need should be specific and the monies raised should be spent only on those items. We want Balanced Budgets and full public disclosure of accounts from all ministries. We need to take control of our own Provincial Jurisdictions. The Federal Government should not be playing games with transfer payments and yes BC CAN be part of a dynamic Canada. There is too much power concentrated in the Office of the Premier - he/she should not be allowed to become a dictator - this is supposed to be a democratic country. We want free votes in the legislature, effective recall and more accountability from our MLAs. Many Government rules and regulations do not meet modern requirements and situations.

Government agencies have too much power and are essentially unaccountable to the people. We have all experienced the frustration of being "presumed guilty until proven innocent". So we want to reduce Government, taxes and red tape. Government should be there to serve the people - not the people serving the Government. At BCCAN we want to build a positive economic environment and bring the Government back to the people.

CONSTITUTION

The Party has been established to:

Elect Members to the Legislative Assembly of The Province of British Columbia

and

To recognize that religion is an individual and personal matter and that the duty of the Legislature is to manage those affairs which fall within their jurisdiction, according to the wishes of the Citizens of British Columbia.

To practice and promote increasing democracy, both within the Party structure and the Province of British Columbia.

To support the establishment of an elected Canadian Senate and to hold elections for Senators from The Province of British Columbia.

To recognize that the Citizens of British Columbia have the right to determine priority spending of the funds the Government collects on their behalf and to institute Referenda so that the will of the Citizens may be clearly known.

To introduce a system of dedicated taxation where the revenues from the tax will be used only for the assigned purpose, and when the purpose is complete the tax is abolished.

To reduce Government wherever possible and in particular: to ensure that Crown Corporations exist only to serve the Citizens and not as revenue generators, budget loopholes or investors in private industry; to eliminate the multitude of overlapping Government Departments.

To demand that Members of the Legislature represent the Citizens who elect them and institute free votes in the Legislature to facilitate this representation. The concept of non-confidence is archaic and has no place in a truly democratic legislature.

To amend Recall Legislation to be more workable to streamline the M.L.A.'s removal if they do not represent the majority wishes of their constituents.

To strive to ensure that the Citizen's rights are only constrained when they impinge on other Citizens' rights.

To instill in the judicial system the principle of Citizen rights, instead of Criminal Rights.

To insist that Legislation be examined for constitutionality before it is implemented and that any existing Legislation be examined in a timely fashion.

To reduce and remove bureaucracy wherever it serves no constructive purpose, where it intrudes and interferes with the personal lives of Citizens and especially where it constrains Citizens from being as productive in their lives as they are capable and desirous of being.

Also:

The party shall also be identified only by the abbreviation BCCAN.

The Constitution of BCCAN shall be amended only by a majority vote of 60% of its members in good standing participating by universal ballot, where 50% of the members in good standing must participate in order for the vote to be valid.

Any person who holds any position in the Party shall apprise themselves of the Constitution and the Bylaws and shall be expected to rule their actions both by the letter and the intent of the Constitution and the Bylaws.


Upon receiving written notice from any Member of the Party to the effect that they have failed to comply with the Constitution and/or the Bylaw(s), the person holding the position shall within 30 days take whatever corrective measures are possible and issue a statement of the measures taken and an apology to the appropriate Board of Directors and the Party Central Office.

If, at the end of the 30 day time period, these actions have not been completed the position is vacated and the former position holder shall not hold any position within the Party for one calendar year.

For more information please contact:

Bill Forsyth, New Hazelton, BC
(250) 842-6779

Kal Gidda, Okanagan Falls, BC
(250) 497-5051

POLICY

The policies of BCCAN explain and demonstrate the intentions of the constitution of the party. Below are some of the issues that we believe are foremost in the minds of all British Columbians:

· The Legislature has no business in the churches or the bedrooms of the Citizens of British Columbia. Legislating our differences only creates the discrimination that we are striving to eliminate.
· The Provincial Government is supposed to be responsible for items such as: Direct Taxation; Management and Sale of Provincial Lands, Timber and Non-renewable Resources; Health Care; Marriage; Property Rights; Civil Rights and Justice - both Criminal and Civil. The Legislature of British Columbia has presided over the encroachment on these jurisdictions by the Federal Government. We intend to take these jurisdictions back so that there will be no more, "Do as we say or we will not send you your transfer payments!", from the Federal Government.
· BCCAN will reduce the interference of Government Agencies with the Citizens of British Columbia. No more taxes disguised as permits, licenses or "eco-fees" and endless mountains of paperwork that restrict our ability to create a livelihood.
· We need to reduce the burden of taxation in British Columbia. Most of our economy is consumer driven. If you don't have sufficient income left after "The Tax Man Cometh" to support yourself then our whole Province suffers economically.
· BCCAN supports the concept of dedicated taxation. Taxes should be applied for specific purposes and should not be used for anything else. This same rule should be applied to Crown Corporations, which have been established to perform a specific Public Service and should not be used as an indirect form of taxation.
· We must stop the practice of overspending, borrowing and increasing taxation. Proper Balanced Budget Legislation is necessary, with an open book policy so that detailed spending of each Ministry is open to full public scrutiny.
· BCCAN supports the Citizens Right to vote by Referendum on what is priority spending within the budget, and to vote on new taxes or increases in tax by Referendum before they can be implemented.
· Members of the legislature shall represent their Constituents. What a novel idea! We need free votes in the legislature. No more implied non-confidence votes on each piece of legislation - it should be a specific vote of its own accord. The recording of every vote so that we can see how our representatives are voting - increasing accountability. Proper Recall legislation.
· BCCAN supports the establishment of fixed election dates to end the manipulation of the Citizens by self-serving Governments.
· We recognize that we can exercise the "Notwithstanding Clause" in our dealings with Ottawa just as other provinces are doing.

[Lambkin]

The chief point of interest here is the fee schedule claim, though the others were equally defective. Associate Chief Justice Cullen cites Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 for the proposition that “fee schedule” type foisted unilateral agreements have no legal effect and comments at paras. 84, 87:

… It is simply a nonsensical concoction designed to hinder and harass those against whom such claims are made.

… The fee schedule as I noted is a fictional claim. It has no basis in law or logic and has been thoroughly discredited in Meads v. Meads, supra, and other decisions referenced in that judgment. The plaintiffs’ pursuit of such a claim meets the definition of “reprehensible conduct” referred to by the authorities as a basis for special costs.

<<Applause>>

[Jeffrey]

Mowe tastefully avoids linking trailer parks to OPCA litigation.

[grixit]

I think that this is a situation where a rent strike would succeed.

[Fmotlgroupie]

This is interesting on a lot of different levels.

First off, am I the only one who had shades of Mr Lahey reading about Kal's trailer park management?

Second, the (predominantly Sikh) South-Asian community in the South (by Canadian standards) Okanagan is an interesting one. Many, possibly (I really don't know) most of the fruit orchards in the area are now owned by older Sikh men and their extended families. I think it's an extension of a traditional connection to the land, and a chance to turn hard work and traditional expertise, as opposed to Canadian degrees and cultural familiarity, into a business. I'm not familiar with any real Sikh presence in the wineries there, which are usually fancy boutique affairs, charging a minimum of $20 a bottle while often not turning much profit.

I wonder if Kal is of a younger generation. It could explain the idea to branch out into winemaking, and his openness to (crazy) new ideas. In my experience Sikh families have the usual preponderance of healthy and normal situations, but the ones which adhere too strictly to old gender ideas (oppressing daughters and putting sons on pedestals) can generate a very very entitled type of young man, which is what Feeemanusm is all about!

[Lambkin]

I wonder if Kal is of a younger generation. It could explain the idea to branch out into winemaking, and his openness to (crazy) new ideas. In my experience Sikh families have the usual preponderance of healthy and normal situations, but the ones which adhere too strictly to old gender ideas (oppressing daughters and putting sons on pedestals) can generate a very very entitled type of young man, which is what Feeemanusm is all about!

Sikhism prohibits the consumption of alcohol. Of course, many Sikhs are not religious.

[ArthurWankspittle]

First off, am I the only one who had shades of Mr Lahey reading about Kal's trailer park management?

Mr Lahey going all sovereign/freeman would make a good episode. Cheeseburger anyone?