Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• At the heart of this dispute is Rule 10 of the BC Mainland Cricket League, which bars players from participating in any other cricket league in the Lower Mainland or risk forfeiting their League registration.

• The respondents challenged Rule 10 as ultra vires the Society's Constitution and the Societies Act, S.B.C. 2015, c. 18, alleging it improperly prevented League players from also playing in LMS Canada events, contrary to the Society's stated purposes.

• The chambers judge below sided with the petitioners on a "plain reading," concluding that Rule 10 "quelled" cricket's growth rather than fostering or extending it, in breach of the Society's stated purposes.

• On appeal, the Court of Appeal found the chambers judge committed an error in principle by selectively focusing only on the "foster" and "extend" purposes while ignoring the Society's equally stated purposes to organize, govern, and regulate cricket.

• A second error was the chambers judge's failure to interpret the phrase "game of cricket" holistically across the Constitution, Bylaws, and Governing Rules — which together confine that phrase to cricket played under ICC/MCC rules, not LMS Canada's trademarked short-form variant.

• The court affirmed that governing a sporting league inherently permits eligibility restrictions to preserve competitive integrity, player availability, and orderly league administration.

Background: a century-old league and a new challenger

The British Columbia Mainland Cricket Association (the "Society") has governed and administered the British Columbia Mainland Cricket League (the "League") in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia for over 100 years. The Society was incorporated in 1999 under what is now the Societies Act and operates pursuant to a Constitution and Bylaws administered by a Management Committee. The League currently fields approximately 105 teams ranging from recreational to elite, with the playing season running from approximately March to the end of September each year. The game played in the League is the traditional form of cricket, played in accordance with ICC rules and, for the most part, the League follows the MCC code of conduct.

In about November 2021, Emrul Hasan and Redowan-ul Islam Chowdhury obtained a franchise to operate an LMS competition in the Lower Mainland, operating as Last Man Stands Canada ("LMS Canada"). "Last Man Stands" ("LMS") is a new, shorter form of cricket developed in South Africa in about 2005, with matches taking about two hours to complete, played on weeknights, involving fewer players, and played under unique trademarked rules — and is not recognized by the ICC. LMS Canada is not a member of the Society, though Mr. Hasan is a member of the North Shore Cricket Club ("NSCC"), which is itself a member club of the Society.

Rule 10 and the dispute

Rule 10 was originally adopted at an April 2008 delegates meeting, where the Management Committee proposed it as a measure intended to prevent teams from using "ringers" by limiting a player's participation to one team and one Lower Mainland league. All but one delegate voted in favour of Rule 10. As amended, the rule provides that a player registered or playing in any other league in the Lower Mainland forfeits their League registration and becomes disqualified. The Society maintained that Rule 10 is an important governance tool that allows the Society to plan competitions, ensure player availability during the League season, and prevent the movement of players between leagues in a manner that could unfairly affect competitive integrity. The Society further asserted that Rule 10 merely required players to choose whether to commit to Society-organized competitions during the season or to play some other form of cricket — players could choose to play in LMS Canada events, or the League, but not both.

The petitioners — LMS Canada and NSCC — challenged Rule 10 as contrary to the Society's constitutional purposes and therefore in breach of the Societies Act. The Society's Constitution states its purposes include, among others, to "organize, foster, promote, improve, aid, extend and govern the playing of the game of cricket" in mainland British Columbia, and "to take all steps necessary or desirable to regulate the game of cricket."

The Society's constitution and the policy terms at issue

The key clauses at issue were the Society's constitutional purposes under section 2(a), (b), and (c), as well as the Bylaws and Governing Rules. Section 2(a) lists the purposes of organizing, fostering, promoting, improving, aiding, extending, and governing the playing of the game of cricket in schools and amongst the youth and adults in Vancouver and the Mainland in the Province of British Columbia. Section 2(b) directs the Society to take all steps necessary or desirable to regulate the game of cricket in Vancouver and the Mainland. Section 2(c) requires the Society to supervise the cricket League and other competitions for members of the Association. The Bylaws further specify that "the game of cricket shall be played in accordance with the Laws of Cricket subject to the Rules and Regulations" established by the Management Committee. The Governing Rules likewise provide that the League's general playing rules follow current MCC Laws and current ICC Playing Conditions except where specified.

The chambers judge's decision

On October 20, 2025, the chambers judge in Chowdhury v. British Columbia Mainland Cricket Association, 2025 BCSC 2041, ruled in favour of the petitioners. She found on a "plain reading" that Rule 10 "restricts the playing of the game of cricket in mainland British Columbia" and concluded that it was "not fostering or extending the playing of the game of cricket, it is the quelling of it." She made declarations and orders to the effect that the aspect of Rule 10 banning players who participated in other Lower Mainland leagues was inconsistent with the purposes of the Society, unenforceable, and ordered that Rule 10 was to be amended by striking out the second sentence.

The Court of Appeal's analysis

The Society appealed to the Court of Appeal for British Columbia, arguing that the chambers judge misinterpreted the Society's purposes by selectively elevating the "foster" and "extend" purposes over the equally valid purposes of governing, organizing, and regulating the game. The Court of Appeal, per Justice MacNaughton (with Justices Horsman and Iyer concurring), agreed. The Court held that the Society's purposes must be interpreted contextually and holistically, giving effect to each stated purpose and avoiding an interpretation that renders any purpose functionally irrelevant. The chambers judge erred by collapsing the Society's stated purposes into a single objective of maximizing participation, without addressing whether such restriction may be part of, and even necessary to, governance and regulation.

The Court further found that the chambers judge erred in not considering the meaning of the phrase "the game of cricket" as it appears in multiple contexts in the record. Read holistically across the Constitution, Bylaws, and Governing Rules, that phrase refers to the game of cricket played pursuant to ICC/MCC rules and code of conduct — not all forms of cricket. Since LMS Canada plays a different game of cricket pursuant to a set of trademarked rules that are not recognized by the ICC/MCC, the Society's purpose to foster "the game of cricket" did not extend to LMS-style cricket in the first place.

Ruling and outcome

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the orders of the chambers judge, and dismissed the amended petition. The British Columbia Mainland Cricket Association prevailed, with the Court confirming that Rule 10 is not contrary to the Society's purposes. The Court noted that governing a sporting league necessarily entails rules that regulate eligibility, player movement, and player participation during the season, and that those rules may limit certain forms of player participation in order to preserve competitive integrity, ensure player availability, and maintain orderly administration of league play. No monetary amount was ordered or awarded in this matter, as the relief sought was declaratory and regulatory in nature.