In Satguru Ram Singh Satsang Charitable Foundation v Akalirai, released on March 31, 2026, the Supreme Court of British Columbia considered a dispute involving a significant gift of residential property to Satguru Ram Singh Satsang Charitable Foundation (the “Foundation”), a registered charity and a registered society under the B.C. Societies Act. The donor, Ms. Nasib Kaur Akalirai (the “Donor”), had transferred her interest in a Vancouver property to the Foundation by deed of gift in 2018 while retaining the right to live in the property for the rest of her life and received a charitable donation receipt in the amount of $1,625,000 on February 12, 2019. “In or about the spring of 2021,” the Donor requested that the property be returned to her. The matter was brought to court, with the Donor claiming that the gift was invalid on the basis of duress and raising the issue of whether a completed charitable gift could be set aside.
The Donor alleged that she had been pressured by her son-in-law to donate the property at a time when she was emotionally vulnerable following the murder of her grandson. The court rejected that evidence and instead accepted evidence that the Donor had initiated discussions regarding the gift, pursued the donation herself, and obtained independent legal advice before signing the deed of gift and transfer. The court placed significant weight on the signed certificate of independent legal advice, which stated that the transfer documents had been “thoroughly” reviewed with the Donor and that she did not appear to be signing as a result of “undue stress, fear, duress, improper understanding, undue influence or false inducement.”
In its analysis, the court relied on the British Columbia Court of Appeal’s decision in Doukhobor Heritage Retreat Society #1999 v Vancouver Foundation, as discussed in our May 2020 Charity & NFP Law Update, for the principle that completed charitable gifts are generally “non-refundable and irrevocable.” Quoting from Doukhobor, the court noted that “a person who has made a gift cannot retract it” and that, unless the gift is conditional, “the donor has no further right to control the property or monies in question.”
The court also reviewed the law of duress, explaining that duress “normally involves a threat of an unlawful or illegal action made to compel the innocent party” to enter into an agreement. The burden of proving duress rested on the Donor as the party seeking to invalidate the gift. On the evidence before it, the court found that the Donor had “wholly failed” to prove duress, stating that there was “no unlawful or illegitimate threat, physical compulsion, or coercion of the will” that caused her to transfer the property to the Foundation. While the Donor may have regretted the transfer, the court held that regret after the fact was not enough to invalidate the gift.
For charities, this decision underscores the importance of careful documentation when accepting significant gifts, particularly gifts of real property or gifts from elderly or potentially vulnerable donors. Although the court found the gift to be valid in this case, the dispute illustrates why charities should ensure that major gifts are supported by clear gift documentation, independent legal advice where appropriate, and good recordkeeping showing that the donor understood the nature and consequences of the gift. The decision also confirms that courts will require clear evidence before setting aside a completed charitable gift on the basis of duress.