Our colleagues Jai Singh Sheikhupura and Kirstin Jamison recently recorded a decisive win against a society seeking to maintain a monopoly over cricket in the Lower Mainland: Chowdhury v. British Columbia Mainland Cricket Association, 2025 BCSC 2041.

The case was picked up on MSN.com. View the full article here: B.C. Judge orders cricket association to drop rule against new league.

Acting for the franchise owners of Last Man Stands Canada (a new international amateur league operating in the Lower Mainland), Jai and Kirsti sought relief under the Societies Act arguing that a rule imposed by the the BC Mainland Cricket Association (a society incorporated under the BC Societies Act) was ultra vires the Act, as well as the Society’s own by-laws and constitution. The rule, Rule 10, prohibited players from playing for any club other than a club registered with the Society and penalized offending members by suspending them from league games. It is worth noting that one of the purposes of the BC MCA is to grow the sport in BC, and that Last Man Stands was set up to provide additional opportunities to play for cricket enthusiasts who don’t have the time or skill to play the longer version weekend games organized by the BC MCA.

One of the arguments put forward by our team was that the BC MCA’s position preventing people from playing in both leagues amounted to stifling growth, player participation, and skill development, contrary to its own purposes. The Judge noted courts will exercise caution in intervening with societies; however, the Societies Act allows courts to issue a judgment if a society acts contrary to its purposes.

At para. 20, the Court held that Rule 10 violated the Societies Act and provided the following rationale:

[38]         On its face, Rule 10 restricts rather than extends the playing of cricket in mainland British Columbia. In my view, this is a defect or error in the conduct of the Society’s affairs (s. 105), as it is contrary to the Society’s purposes. Moreover, the recent enforcement of Rule 10 against players who have registered or played in the Last Man Stands league resulted in conduct contrary to the Society’s purposes: s. 105(1)(b). I am also of the view that restriction of play of the game of cricket on the basis set out in Rule 10 is an “activity” being carried out by the Society: s. 104(1)(b).

[39]         Whether Rule 10 is a defect or error, or restricting the playing of cricket is an “activity” amounts to the same thing: the society is conducting its affairs contrary to its purposes, and ss. 104 and 105 of the Act permit the Court to intervene.

The Court intervened, amended the rule, and directed the Society to stop restricting players’ rights to play. It also awarded costs to our client. Congratulations, Jai and Kirsti, on a job well done!