April 14, 2020
The Honourable Justice Sandra Nishikawa
Ontario Superior Court of Justice
Le Congrès Hellénique du Québec vs. Canadian Hellenic Congress,
2020 ONSC 2224
EXTRACT FROM COURT JUDGMENT:
 As a result, notwithstanding the irregularities of the 2016 Election and the relief ordered below in respect of certain articles of the 2016 Constitution, there is no basis for disturbing the composition of the National Council as elected in 2016.
 It is clear from the evidentiary record that the CHC [Canadian Hellenic Congress] had for years acted in a manner inconsistent with its constituting documents. It had no financial statements and elections and annual conventions were not being held. As record-keeping was inconsistent, it is difficult to see how the organization was operating or who was making the decisions. It certainly was not operating according to the governance structure in the 1999 Constitution. Inevitably, there were differences of opinion among the constituent organizations that were exemplified by the dispute over fees and unequal treatment of the provincial organizations.
 For the foregoing reasons, I find that the CHC did not comply with the 1999 Constitution when it passed the 2016 Constitution and when it created the QRC [Quebec Regional Council]. The 2016 Election was also irregular and was conducted in the absence of important constituencies of the organization. Although it was the CHQ [Congrès Hellénique du Québec] who commenced this Application, significant objections were voiced by almost many other provincial organizations and the largest municipal organizations before and after the 2016 Convention. The CHC nonetheless proceeded with the Convention.
 Accordingly, the CHQ’s Application is granted and the following relief is ordered:
(a) A declaration that the QRC was created improperly and without authority;
(b) A declaration that the following provisions of the 2016 Constitution are of no force or effect until properly amended in accordance with section 19 of the 1999 Constitution:
Article 7, section 6;
Article 13, section 3;
Article 19, section 1;
Article 21, section 5;
Article 22, sections 3 and 4;
Article 23, section 1;
Article 24, section 10; and
Article 36, section 2.
 Counsel requested an opportunity to make submissions on costs. Given the restrictions on the court’s operations and the constraints on the court’s resources during the current pandemic, the parties are encouraged to agree on costs. In the event that no agreement is reached, Applicant’s counsel shall submit their costs outlines and costs submissions within 14 days of the release of these Reasons. The Respondent’s costs submissions are due within 14 days of receiving the Applicant’s cost submissions. No costs submissions are to exceed four double-spaced pages and may submitted by email to my judicial assistant, at Roxanne.email@example.com. No reply submissions without leave. If no costs submissions are received within this time frame, the parties will be deemed to have resolved costs.