‘Unfortunate and sad dispute’: Surrey family locked in court battle over cremated remains

A Surrey family landed in BC Supreme Court in a fight over what to do with cremated remains that the judge described as an “unfortunate and sad dispute.”

Gurdev Kaur Mangat, 80, went to court against her daughter Sundeep Baines and son aspal Singh Mangat over the fate of the remains of her husband Dalip Singh Mangat, who died in September of 2024. They were married for 62 years.

“The petitioner and her daughter Ms. Baines agree that the Sikh faith and religion provides that the body is to be cremated, and the cremated remains, the ashes, are to be spread over waters,” said the court ruling. “The petitioner wishes to take the remains and scatter them over the ocean, from a vessel, somewhere near White Rock. The difficulty is essentially that Ms. Baines believes she is unwelcome at the ceremony and, as she puts it, would not feel safe in attending the ceremony if it is controlled by her mother, due to family hostility and conflict that she describes in her affidavit.”

A few days prior to his death, Dalip Singh Mangat executed a will, said the court ruling, and it named Baines as sole trustee. The will said nothing about funeral arrangements, or what should be done with the remains of the deceased, said the court ruling.

“Ms. Baines offers a compromise for the ceremony to scatter the remains,” reads the court ruling. “She says that in the Sikh religion there is nothing preventing the remains from being divided. She proposes to give the majority of the ashes to the petitioner, and she would take some smaller part, and they would have separate ceremonies.

The mother, however, does not agree.

“She says that she wants to have one ceremony,” reads the court ruling. “She says that Ms. Baines is very welcome to attend, but if she doesn’t feel safe being on the same vessel, that is, the same boat as the petitioner and others are on, then if she wishes Ms. Baines could attend the ceremony from a separate vessel.”

Baines responded that this would deny her “meaningful participation” in the ceremony.

But the judge decided that the man’s wife should make the final decision and so granted the woman’s petition.

“It seems to me that where the deceased gave no specific directions, his spouse would be in an exceptionally good position to know what his wishes might have been in the circumstances,” said the court ruling. “Leaving that aside, obviously a spouse of 62 years should, as the statute reflects, have a very strong say in what happens with the remains.”