A B.C. man who sued his parents and older brother over alleged unfair allocation of proceeds from the family business has instead been ordered to pay his parents more than $5 million. Randeep Nijjar, who goes by “Nick,” was unable to prove his claims against his father Bhupinder “Bob” Nijjar, his mother Rajinder “Raji” Nijjar and his brother Rajeev “Raj” Nijjar, according to a B.C. Supreme Court decision issued last week. Instead, Justice Sandra Wilkinson found that Bob and Raji had proved their counterclaim against their son, ruling that Nick had breached various agreements and converted his parents’ funds for his own use and the use of companies he controlled. He deprived them of a total of $5,246,754.99 and was unjustly enriched in the process, according to Wilkinson’s decision. The ‘Nijjar Family Enterprise’ At the centre of Nick’s claims was what he referred to as the “Nijjar Family Enterprise,” an alleged unwritten agreement between himself, Bob, Raji and Raj that governed how family members invested in real estate development and hotel management. Wilkinson’s decision is more than 950 paragraphs long and, if printed, would take up 184 pages. It details the family’s involvement in dozens of properties and companies over the course of more than 40 years, focusing primarily on what the judge refers to as “foundational companies and projects.” “Nick provided a list of 44 companies and over 100 property addresses and hotels, which lists he stated were not exhaustive,” the decision reads, summarizing the properties that allegedly formed part of the Nijjar Family Enterprise. The trouble with this mountain of evidence, according to Wilkinson, was that it did not prove the existence of the unwritten agreement as Nick had described it. Indeed, at multiple points, the decision notes that Nick’s allegations about the Nijjar Family Enterprise and which properties and companies were and weren’t part of it changed over the course of the trial. “Rather than focusing on proving the agreement alleged in his pleadings, throughout trial Nick has alleged multiple separate and/or shifting agreements between the parties,” the decision reads. “The terms of the alleged agreement have been a moveable feast.” The judge concluded that no contract had been established, and therefore there was no contract for her to find Nick’s family members had breached. “It may be that Nick expected his parents to continue giving him money in ever larger amounts,” the decision reads. “It may be that Nick wanted to have the same amount of wealth as his brother. It may be that by virtue of being the son and brother of successful individuals, Nick believed that he, too, should benefit financially. But Nick’s subjective intentions and desires do not a contract make. To make out his case he needs to prove more.” The absence of a proven agreement underpinning the alleged Nijjar Family Enterprise also necessarily undermined Nick’s claims that his parents and brother had been unjustly enriched by his share of the profits from the family business. “Nick’s particulars assert he is entitled to the same share as Raj,” the decision reads. “But at trial, Nick’s evidence was that Raj’s share was ‘zero.’ It follows, on his pleadings, that Nick’s share would similarly be nothing.” “Further, if anything, Nick has caused a loss to the ‘Nijjar Family Enterprise,’ not profit,” it continues. “He has repeatedly failed to engage or do work. He has taken money from no fewer than three companies he asserts are part of the enterprise, and he did so without authorization. He has not proven that any part of the alleged enterprise is richer by his involvement, or that he has earned a share of any profit.” For similar reasons, Wilkinson dismissed all of Nick’s claims, including requests for accounting and tracing, restitution and damages, as well as various “unpled claims” that were not part of his court filings but were brought up during the trial. Regarding these unpled claims, the judge explained: “Throughout the trial Nick displayed an obsession with the management of the corporate records for the companies he alleged to be within the Family Enterprise. He developed certain theories based on his research into the corporate filings which fed into his arguments which I can only describe as alleging some sort of conspiracy designed to harm him and him alone.” “This is not an action regarding corporate records, and Nick has failed to establish any claim in respect of the corporate records of the companies at issue,” the decision reads. The counterclaim Bob and Raji brought their counterclaim against four numbered companies, rather than against Nick directly, but it was their son’s conduct in managing the companies that gave rise to their claims. They alleged that their son had made and breached multiple agreements with them relating to various development and real estate projects in Vancouver. The first agreement, chronologically, was the “Knight Street Agreement.” In 2007, Nick had been out of university for two years, but was still living in Bob and Raji’s home and was unemployed, according to the decision. The parents were “eager to get Nick on his feet,” and decided to use one of their companies to purchase a pair of neighbouring homes at 4317 and 4305 Knight St. in Vancouver for him to redevelop in a land assembly. “The agreement was that Bob and Raji would contribute the funds to purchase the property, Nick would get a builder’s licence and provide the sweat equity, and the three would split the proceeds equally as between Bob and Raji on the one hand and Nick on the other,” the decision reads. “Regrettably, Nick continued to fail to apply himself and he never went through with the development work, necessitating the introduction of a new partner to finish the job.” The introduction of the new partner reduced the Nijjar family’s collective stake in the property to 50 per cent. When the redeveloped property was ultimately sold, the court decision indicates, Nick kept the full 50 per cent share, rather than splitting it evenly with his parents as the agreement had prescribed. Wilkinson also found that Nick had breached several other agreements he made with his father, all of which centred on a pair of redevelopment projects, one on East 21st Avenue and the other on West 32nd Avenue – referred to in the decision as “Dunbar,” because of its cross-street – in Vancouver. The arrangement for each of those projects was similar to the Knight Street Agreement, with Bob and Raji putting up funds and Nick overseeing construction, according to the decision. The East 21st property – another land assembly – was acquired in 2014, and the Dunbar property – which was to be subdivided and redeveloped – was acquired in 2015. Wilkinson found that Nick breached the agreements governing these projects “repeatedly.” He took more than $1.6 million out of the companies that had been used to purchase the Dunbar property during construction “for his own use and benefit.” “Nick did construct Dunbar, providing the consideration of his sweat equity,” the decision reads. “I note that it took a very long time to do so and required further injections of cash in the form of loans from (another family company) which were never repaid. However, once the properties were constructed and sold, Nick breached the agreement. He failed to repay Bob’s investment into the project and he removed approximately $1.9 million from the company, which he transferred to his own company.” In the case of East 21st, Nick did not develop the site, instead re-selling the properties “almost immediately” to a developer. “He then took the funds for himself, failed to repay Bob’s investment, and purchased (a different property) in his own name while telling Bob that he was purchasing it through (a numbered company),” the decision reads. “None of the East 21st money made it back to Bob, and there is no evidence (the numbered company) was involved in the foreclosure process or sale of (the property Nick acquired), which it presumably should have been, had it been the beneficial owner.” While Nick justified his actions to the court by claiming the properties were actually acquired using his own funds or money from his wife, this was not the case, according to the decision. “Nick knowingly interfered with Bob and Raji’s property,” the decision reads. “Nick knew he was not supposed to take this money, and yet he did. Even if he was not aware of that fact, and believed the companies and projects were his, that is no defence. It is enough that Nick received the funds and put them to his own use, thereby denying Bob and Raji’s right as the true owner of the funds. While it defies belief that Nick would not know to whom the funds belonged, it also does not matter.” Wilkinson ordered Nick to pay Bob and Raji $604,738.49 for his breach of the Knight Street Agreement. She also ordered his companies to pay $2,562,482.60 for his breaches of agreements related to the Dunbar property and $2,044,533.76 for his breaches related to the East 21st property. Nick is jointly liable for the damages his companies must pay, making the total amount he owes his parents more than $5.2 million.
