Litigation during Holy Week. What could be more edifying? 
HAMILTON — The thorny issue of who owns the churches in which a breakaway group of Anglicans worship is back before the courts in Ontario.
The Anglican Diocese of Niagara is seeking joint custody of three Ontario parishes that lawyer John Page says are contravening church law in their efforts to maintain possession of the buildings.
Page says church law prevents the buildings from being sold, leased or mortgaged without permission from the bishop.
Last month, Superior Court Justice James Ramsay issued a temporary order that rejected the diocese’s argument that two of the churches be shared on Sundays until a civil matter is resolved.
Ramsay sided instead with the churches, which have now aligned themselves with the more conservative Anglican Network in Canada.
On Thursday, Page urged the court to consider the “irreparable harm” of that decision and grant, even temporarily, joint management of the buildings.
The congregations are among some 15 parishes in Canada, namely British Columbia and Ontario, that are looking to split from the church over long-standing fundamental theological differences.
UPDATE: The Diocese of Niagara’s statement on this case (heard but not decided on today) is here. There’s nothing new said in it really, just a little dig about how they will continue to minister to those who have been ‘shut out’ of St George’s, Lowville.
Report from courtroom by Ray David Glenn on his Blackberry “There is no resolution on the motion. That means the Judge did not rule, Her decision will follow in time, maybe a week or so. Until then Judge Ramsey’s order stands. So we continue to have exclusive use of the buildings.”
HAPPY EASTER everybody
At least you will have them for Easter.
Different judge from last time then?
Yes, different judge. She was pretty unreadable, I thought. There was a mountain of documentation supplied and she seemed tired by the end – well, everyone was.
Her last comment was a bit sad, something like, ‘I’m not sure I can wish you lot a Happy Easter’.
The dio. introduced a new argument based on the contention that we have ‘broken the cannons’. They were much better prepared this time; there was a lot less stuttering.
As an observer at court today I would like to share my assessment. I must make a disclaimer first that I am not a lawyer and the comments below are just my own thoughts on the matter.
As I understand it, the diocese was making two arguments for an injunction from the court for joint use and administration of the buildings in the three parishes. The reasons are:
1) The diocese should be given full access because the three parishes have broken canon law. In this case he argued that the standard requirement to prove irreparable harm and balance of convenience do not need to be met (New argument)
2) The standard requirements for an injunction:
a.There is a serious issue to be tried (both sides agree with this)
b.There will be irreparable harm to the diocese
c.The balance of convenience favours the diocese
Peter Jarvis gave a strong defence clearly representing what the issues are and why the ANiC parishes actually have a much stronger case that they will suffer irreparable harm and the balance of convenience favours them. He clearly argued that the requested injunction sough by the diocese is completely unacceptable to the three ANiC parishes.
In the middle of Peter’s arguments we were interrupted by the fire alarm and were eventually evacuated form the building resulting in about a 30min forced recess.
During the second defence lawyers presentation concerning the diocese first argument he asked the judge if she needed to hear more on the argument. She eventually indicated that she did not. I infer from this and other comments related to precedent, that judge has likely decided to reject the first argument of the diocese.
At about 4:10 once the arguments were complete the judge stated that she would not make a decision today, and walked out. I think some of the diocesan supporters were disappointed that they will not be able to hold an ACoC Easter service at St. George’s.
Unfortunately no time frame was given for a ruling. The timing is completely at her discretion. My speculation is that the judges decision will come some time next week once she has hade some time to read the submitted documentation. I expect that judgement will be based on weighing the arguments from both sides on the issue of irreparable harm and balance of convenience. A similar decision to what judge Ramsey had to make at the previous court case.
To add to Kelvin’s excellent summary, argument 1) was very new; i.e. our lawyer only heard about it the previous evening. There was also some discussion on trusts and who holds the property for whom; our lawyer appealed to the Solemn Declaration of 1893, of course.
I bring to attention what is on the Diocese of Niagara’s very own announcements on how the diocese is disposing of the contents of the Louth Church.
http://www.niagara.anglican.ca/parishes/announcements.cfm?PID=406
One set of Holy Hardware out of many and many to go before this is all over. Er does anyone want the building? It would make a nice church. Perhaps the judge will take into consideration that the diocese seems to have a surfeit of churches on it’s hands and why is it fighting for these others?
It’s all about the money, isn’t it?
In its statement, the Diocese of Niagara says it will continue to offer services for those who have been “shut out” of St George’s. Who has been shut out?? As I understand it anyone is welcome there, on any Sunday. This kind of overwrought, misleading language and behaviour is typical of the Diocese these days. (I believe the current pop-culture buzzword for such behaviour is “emo”.)
Ellie: Money = pensions.
It’s not the emptiness of the buildings that the diocese is fighting, it is their very lifeblood that they are attempting to keep pumping by doing what they are doing. I hope and pray that the Judge will be made aware of the Louth Church situation before judgement is handed down.
Blessings to all in St. Georges, St. Hilda’s, Good Shepherd and St. Chads this Holy Weekend.
It was interesting how precise the lawyer for the defences arguments were yesterday. He had to be very careful in his wording no to lie. There were two things of note that I observed about this:
1) St. Hilda’s and Good Shepherd were left out of the argument about the displaced parishioners, conceding that there are no displaced parishioners in these parishes. Instead he argues that the DoN should be allowed to use the associated buildings to re-build those parishes.
2) The argument about the displaced parishioners from St. George’s was also very precise. His complaint was that these parishioners were not allowed to hold an ACoC service at St. George’s. He conceded that they were welcome to attend as individuals the ongoing ANiC services being held there. And were free to use the cemetery.
During the defences rebuttal, Peter Jarvis clearly illustrated two important points about these “displaced” parishioners:
1) That a number of the affidavits were not written by the affiants, and they did not even understand what some of the text meant.
2) None of the displaced parishioners that were cross examined were able to define what a true Anglican church was. That is what they were asking for.
Having slept on the impressions created yesterday, I awoke with one overwhelming thought:
The Diocese will do anything to win. The ‘anything’ is mainly a mountain of deceit: deceitful affidavits; deceitful statements on why they wish to hold services in the buildings (to build new congregations!); deceitful statements on the harm that would be done to the Diocese if they were not allowed into the buildings. It went on and on.
Lies, damn lies and Diocese of Niagara lies.
The other thought that sticks with me is that I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the congregations of St George’s, Hilda’s and Good Shepherd have made the right decision – regardless of how this ends up.
Right on David.I was appauled when I heard Peter explain the deceitful way affidavits were obtained and the way they were obtained from elderly past parishinoers at St Georges. It’s hard to believe that someone in a senior position would allow this in the name of the Diocese of Niagara to help their cause.
Lies and deceit seem to be their approach.
Maybe before this is all over this issue could supply a list of possible roomates for Conrad Black.
Never mind the Louth Church, how about that there is a whole web site dedicated to the downsizing of the Region of Undermount…….yes it’s the Diocese of Niagara and from seeing the last post someone is doing drugs. LOL.
http://www.niagara.anglican.ca/Undermount/index.cfm
Unbelievable – and they want to fight to keep church buildings that the Diocese really has no congregation in….. unbelievable… just to be Christian at that!
Louth
Undermount
downsizing
unbelievable
Does anyone remember all the churches that Niagara has closed down since 1990?
I’ll start it off with
Grace, Hamilton, Ont – empty and still not sold off
St. Philip-the-Apostle Church – Burlington, Ont.
Church of the Good Shepherd Church- Hamilton, Ont
St. Andrew by the Lake Church- Hamilton, Ont.
St. Augustine of Canterbury Church – Hamilton, Ont.
St. James the Apostle Church – Hamilton, Ont.
St. Margaret’s Church – Hamilton, Ont.
Church of St. Thomas – Hamilton, Ont.
St. Timothy’s Anglican Church – Hamilton, Ont
St. Mark’s Church – Louth, Ont. empty and still not sold off
St. James’ Church – Merritton/St. Catharine’s, Ont.
St. Martin’s Church -Niagara Falls, Ont.
St. Brendan the Navigator Church – Port Colborne, Ont.
Church of Our Saviour – Stoney Creek, Ont.
Church of the Resurrection – Thorold, Ont.
All Saints’ Anglican Church – Welland, Ont.
When I started this I had no idea the list was so long. If I have made any mistakes please let us know and if you know of any other places do tell.
I was one of the group that submitted a deposition. I was not cross examined because they knew that I could not be confused into saying something that was not true. The two very elderly parishiners who were cross examined / interrogated had desired to have their experience placed on record and asked family members to assist in complying a deposition, which they did. These two people have been at St George’s for generations and are very hurt by what has transpired. Despite the confusion that the network lawyer created in his cross examination these two people are honest, forthright and have been at St George’s for longer than most of us have been alive. The treatment they have received by the cross examination, in the court, and on the blogs is deplorable. How is it that Christians feel free to cannibalize one another?
I would submit that if these ‘displaced’ parishioners were to attend a service at St. George’s Lowville where they had been parishioners for a long time, that they would find it no different now than it has been for the past 25-27 years since Canon Charlie Masters went there. So………….. what seems to be the problem?
They did not write their own depositions (which I can understand if they are elderly and not fully cognizant of everything or if they do not know how to write)… otherwise it was correctly stated in court.
I have not seen where they have been ill treated on this blog.
This is getting nasty and in the attitude of Christianity, it should not be such. Having said that, St. Georges, St. Hilda’s and Good Shepherd did not start the court proceedings. Considering all of the closures since 1990, I don’t understand why they (Diocese of Niagara) would be so adamant about Court proceedings…or is it because they need more buildings to sell in order to have money for the next ones after these.
Bruce, it’s very hard to make any kind of response to your statement re these witnesses without having heard them ourselves. How exactly did they say they had been “hurt”?
Bruce:
I don’t think anyone is trying to impugn the character of those who gave affidavits on behalf of the Diocese. At the same time, it is unrealistic to think that those who did should not be cross-examined (our people were); the responses and formulaic presentation does seem to show that these particular parishioners – while clearly upset about something – are not necessarily saying they are upset about the lack of a Diocesan employee occupying the building.
For those who truly are upset about this, the following question comes to mind:
Charlie Masters has been theologically consistent ever since he has been at St. George’s; neither his theology nor worship style changed after February 24th. He has made it abundantly clear that all are still welcome to attend; so if you were happy there on February 17th, why are you not happy there now? All that has happened is a re-alignment with a theologically compatible Province and Bishop.
To expand a little on this point, my wife and I have 2 close friends at St. Hilda’s. They arrived at St. Hilda’s about 10 years ago. Their theology is liberal, mine is conservative; we disagree. Nevertheless, we remain close friends. They stayed at St. Hilda’s because they felt God’s love in action, because they enjoyed the style of worship and – these are their words – in the liberal churches they had attended there was a lot of talk about social justice, but little action. At St. Hilda’s they heard little talk but saw a lot of action. When we had our vote on February 24th, they decided they could no longer stay at St. Hilda’s; this was – and still is – extremely painful for them and us. We are still close friends, though. What they did not do was insist that a Diocesan representative be imported to hold a service just for them.
The Diocese has 95 other parishes – mostly liberal – where they hold sway; the attempt they are making to occupy the 3 parishes of the Southern Cone reveals their attitude to be that of a dog in a manger.
Mr. Stam, I am eager to hear your response to the arguments above.
As someone who knows Bruce Stam, I have no reason to doubt that his statements about the two elderly parishioners are true. Bruce and his wife left St. George’s a few years ago. It is my impression their leaving was primarily related to disagreement with the leadership on the direction that the church was going, only part of which was related to the vote to associate with Network a few years ago.
As far as the composition goes of the “displaced” parishioners of St. George’s, I would estimate that 6 to 10 of them were actively involved with the parish until the vote in February. I had a nice chat with two of them prior to the start of court on Thursday.
I believe that those who make up the “displaced” parishioners of St. George’s choose to do so on their own or under presser from their friends, not the diocese. These two sides from St. George’s have profoundly different assessments of the DoN theology, its direction, and what should be done about it. I pray God’s richest blessing for those Christians who have decided to remain under the ACoC at St. George’s. Those of you who are only speculating about these things, I would ask to be careful what you say.
Now as far as the Diocese goes, I to am very sceptical about their true motives. Their lawyers is accurately representing his client’s claims, but are they genuine? I too speculate that the diocese is driven primarily by other motives than the well being of the displaced parishioner. My speculations are that some motives for their actions are:
1) They honestly believe that they own the properties
2) There is likely a lot of presser from the other “liberal” diocese across Canada to make sure that a positive precedent for the ACoC is set.
3) Supporting the displaced parishioners at St. George’s is necessary for their case. The warden’s and rector not the diocese hold the Church property at St. George’s in trust for its parishioners. If they can’t show that they have an active ACoC parish, it is much harder for them to argue that they are best suited to exercise that trust.
I apologize; again I have been long winded. I guess I just have lots to say on this subject.
Kelvin: long winded – you? Nah!
I agree on the likelihood of motives 1. (although it pains me to have to words ‘honest’ and ‘diocese’ associated in any way), 2. and 3. I would add:
4) they would like eventually to sell the properties for profit.
5) they would like to squash us.
Bruce and his wife left St. George’s a few years ago.
Well, I guess that was my point on another thread – I don’t think it is honest to call oneself “an active, displaced parishioner” with regards to the vote to join ANiC when you left the church years ago. That’s what irritates me about this whole situation.
Back to my self imposed “’till after Easter” lurkdom.
Kate: “Back to my self imposed “’till after Easter” lurkdom.”
As Oscar Wilde said “I can resist anything except temptation”.
Not that I should talk.
Excellent article on the decline of liberal churches in North America
http://winnipegsun.com/News/Columnists/Quesnel_Joseph/2008/03/22/5072716.html
And did you all see this?http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080322.CHURCH22/TPStory/?query=valpy
Kind of sheds some light on WHY those churches are disappearing…
Let’s try that link again:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080322.CHURCH22/TPStory/?query=valpy
Excellent article Ellie.
I actually have a lot more respect for this pastor who honestly states that she is post Christian than I do for the pretenders who believe as she does yet are not coming clean on their True Allegiance in their congregations or in society.
Still, the question I would ask the pastor at West Hill United Church, “Why bother having a church at all?” If there is no truth, why should I bother taking her direction more than Oprah’s or Dr. Phil’s?
And why bother getting up early on a weekend morning for it??
So here’s the new math…
ACoC = United Church of Canada minus ?? (how many) years?
(But striving to catch up.)
Stephen: Thank-you for posting the Winnipeg Sun article link. I wish I could bottle this up and send to absolutely EVERYONE in the ACoC!
Dave: At the speed that liberalism is advancing, there really isn’t much time difference between the UCC and ACoC — maybe 6 or 8 years maximum and the time lines are diminishing so quickly in this liberalistic North America that it will be little time at all.
Not to worry though, hopefully within a short period of time (measured in years) the Evangelical-Orthodox Anglicans will be free of the revisionist/liberal ACoC.