29th November 2023

Family matters are usually kept within the family, but that wasn’t the case for ex-sisters-in-law Amandeep Kaur and Jagpreet Kaur Shergill.

Kaur claimed that she lent Shergill just under $3,000 to pay for airfare and accommodation costs with the understanding that she would be paid back. However, Shergill claimed this was a gift and that she did not owe Kaur anything.

Kaur brought the dispute to the BC Civil Resolution Trial to settle the disagreement once and for all.

In the spring of 2021, Kaur paid for the travel expenses of Shergill, who was married to Kaur’s brother at the time. Kaur claimed the money was sent at the request of Shergill, who claimed that she did not have the money to pay for herself.

In credit card statements and emails submitted to the court, Kaur proved that she paid $2,974.28 for Shergill’s airfare and hotel accommodations in July 2021. This money includes airfare from Delhi to Mexico City on July 4, 2021, a single night’s accommodation in Mexico City on July 4, 2021, and three night’s accommodation in Toronto from July 6 to 9, 2021.

Kaur said that her ex-sister-in-law promised to repay her but never did.


Vergani Fotografia/Shutterstock

Shergill did not dispute the amount of money paid but the nature of it. She claimed that the money was a gift and that she did not owe Kaur any reimbursement.

In fact, Shergill denied ever asking for the money at all.

Instead, her recall of events was that Kaur insisted on paying for her travel expenses and even did so without consulting her. A move which Shergill claimed lost her money on the original flight, which she had to cancel as a result.

The court received an invoice as evidence for the flight Shergill said she booked but noted that it was unclear whether the flight was cancelled or changed.

After considering the accounts and evidence from both parties, the court decided that the payments were a loan, not a gift. Shergill was ordered to repay her ex-sister-in-law.

As there was no physical evidence of a repayment request prior to the dispute notice, the court decided that the first date for the repayment demand was the dispute notice on February 7, 2023. As such, the court decided that Kaur is entitled to pre-judgement interest from this date, totalling $87.31.

Shergill was also ordered to reimburse Kaur’s CRT fees of $125 as the unsuccessful party under section 49 of the CRTA and CRT rules.

Ultimately, Shergill was ordered to pay Kaur $3,186.59 to settle the dispute.