The plaintiffs are seeking $990,000 in damages plus reinstatement as members in good standing. They’re also asking the Ontario Superior Court of Justice to compel B’nai Brith Canada to produce its bank records, to appoint inspectors “to investigate the affairs of BBC,” and to declare much of the organization’s new constitution invalid.

B’nai Brith has filed a defence denying the allegations. The claims have yet to be proven in court.

The case arises out of a dispute between several longstanding senior members of the organization – who were expelled – and the organization’s leadership over a number of alleged irregularities. The former members contend that B’nai Brith directors have wrested control of the organization from its members, who are organized in lodges, and that B’nai Brith “has used tactics amounting to intimidation” to silence opposition.

The plaintiffs allege that intimidation by B’nai Brith has been implemented through changes to the organization’s constitution, “provisions that were never properly enacted by the members in accordance with the bylaws of the BBC, or presented to and approved by the Ministry of Industry (Canada) as statutorily required, in order to suppress any criticism of the management of the BBC or requests for financial accountability.”

The plaintiffs further allege that B’nai Brith officers have failed to abide by rules governing disclosure of audited financial statements at the group’s 2006 annual general meeting.

B’nai Brith’s statement of defence rejected allegations of constitutional misdeeds, saying any changes were conducted in accordance with legal norms and were upheld by a court of B’nai Brith International (BBI), which is empowered to adjudicate internal disagreements.

The plaintiffs were expelled from B’nai Brith after a disciplinary committee hearing in January 2008 for “conduct unbecoming a member.” The plaintiffs – who include Lou Ronson, a former B’nai Brith national president and a member since 1939, and former national president Harvey Crestohl – allege the disciplinary committee hearing was fraught with legal and procedural errors “such that the plaintiffs were thereby denied a fair hearing conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice.”

They say they were never informed who laid the complaint against them or what specific conduct merited expulsion. As well, they say they weren’t permitted to cross-examine their accusers, they weren’t allowed to present submissions on their own behalf, and that the hearing was adjourned with a request for disclosure of documents still pending.

Their statement of claim alleges B’nai Brith has tried to “limit [the] functions and powers of the individual lodges and their members.” Further, they allege that B’nai Brith’s directors have failed to provide “complete and frank disclosure of the financial affairs as required of the BBC, and enlightenment as to the governance of the BBC.

“The plaintiffs state and the fact is that the directors of the BBC have effectively taken control of the organization from its membership, and in part by way of the taking of such control, failed to provide details of contracts involving themselves and other associated bodies of which they have direction.”

B’nai Brith’s statement of defence asserts that the group’s constitution requires “any concerns, conflicts, controversies or disputes are to be raised and dealt with exclusively within the BBC structure,” which includes appeals of disciplinary committee findings.

The defence acknowledges that “many of the plaintiffs were longstanding members of BBC and BBI. However, the plaintiffs’ tenure and past accomplishments did not insulate them from subsequently engaging in conduct unbecoming a member of these organizations.”

The defence alleges that in late 2005 and early 2006, a number of B’nai Brith members “began circulating defamatory documents which made allegations about the organization and the methods by which it was operating. This group of members eventually began calling themselves the Concerned Members of BBC (CMOBBC).”

The statement of defence goes on to say that the CMOBBC circulated a document at B’nai Brith’s annual general meeting in June 2006 that contained “serious and unsubstantiated allegations against BBC and its leadership. The statement was signed by a number of BBC members identifying themselves as members of the CMOBBC.”

B’nai Brith states that members of CMOBBC complained to a BBI court about alleged irregularities that led to adoption of a new constitution, but the court ruled that the amended constitution was duly passed and was valid. Furthermore, the defence notes, the court required all parties to the appeal to remain silent about the case.

The statement of defence alleges that the CMOBBC nevertheless subsequently circulated e-mails containing allegations of wrongdoing about B’nai Brith, and despite a “cease and desist notice,” the CMOBBC continued to circulate material about the organization and its leadership.

In November 2007, B’nai Brith’s executive committee filed a complaint to the group’s internal disciplinary committee against 21 BBC members who were alleged to be involved with the CMOBBC, and charged that their behaviour “was contrary to the BBC Code of Behaviour and the best interests of the BBC so as to merit expulsion for conduct unbecoming a member of BBC.”

The defence asserts that the hearing was conducted fairly and that Joe Bogoroch, the chair of the executive committee, “was available to answer any question which the appellants wished to pose. At no time during the hearing or subsequently did the alleged CMOBBC members or [their lawyer] direct questions to Mr. Bogoroch or ask to cross-examine him.”

The defence also claims that the members facing expulsion declined to call witnesses when prompted, were permitted to make statements but deferred to their lawyer, and were allowed to provide the evidence they chose.

Lawyer Rochelle Cantor, who represents the expelled members, said the next step in the case will likely be examination for discovery, in which B’nai Brith representatives are questioned and their replies become part of the court record.