Update: the diocese has requested adjournment until March 11 at 2:30.
Please pray for our (3 of the 4 Niagara ANiC parishes) appearance in court in Hamilton next Tuesday, December 23rd at 10 a.m.
We will appear again before Justice Millanetti to determine court costs.
Please pray for our lawyer, Peter, that he may convince the judge of our position regarding costs and the impact it would have on us; also that we may find favour in the eyes of Justice Millanetti.
I will pray for justice, not for injustice, even if it is in our favour. And that our advocate might perform strongly and skilfully, and that Justice Milanetti might give these arguments her fullest consideration.
Since you are back, Toral, would you mind hopping over to this thread and answering the questions posed to you there? Thanks muchly.
Done.
Interesting timing for the court appearance. Prayers are with all in the four churches. All of you, be bold, be joyful (It’s Christmas!!) and be filled with the Holy Spirit!
It is interesting timing. The last court date was Maundy Thursday.
Advent too is powerfully symbolic. Whatever the result, we should view it as a beginning and not an end.
Adjournment in a costs hearing? The diocese’s lawyer must have finally heard about the unpaid bills from the shared use arrangements and advised his client to ask for a delay.
Bill [#7],
Interestingly, the diocesan lawyer has pressed the diocese to accept ANiC’s request to negotiate outside the courts; it’s the diocese that has refused.
Also, the diocesan costs are substantially bigger than ANiC’s.
There is to be another hearing in January to request (ANiC’s request) that future court appearances be in Milton rather than Hamilton.
What a mess. At least you don’t have to worry about it over Christmas.
I am thinking like Bill in Ottawa #7, except more so.
The diocese’s failure to pay its share of bills could affect everything (in these interlocutory proceedings). It calls into question their good faith in everything they have done and said so far. In particular it calls into question their claim that they need half-use of properties so that they can restore ‘true Anglican’ congregations in the disputed buildings. This is speculation, but I wonder if some dummy in the diocese decided they didn’t need to pay half costs because they have congregations there of only 5 or so people. Logical from an economic view, but totally undermining the legal argument re balance of convenience that allowed them to get shared use in the first place. And the beauty would be that we wouldn’t have to get them to admit that — they would have to argue that themselves to avoid paying their share of building costs.
Before, we couldn’t prove what we all know, that the diocese was often (usually? always?) acting in bad faith. Once a judge comes to believe that a party often acts in bad faith, things usually go badly for that party.
Many have felt that I have been unduly negative. However I feel confident that we will either get our half costs (including back costs) for building upkeep, or a settlement along the lines I understand will be offered, whereby most congregations get full use of their buildings in return for forgiveness of the debts owed to us by the deadbeat diocese.
I regret to say that I don’t think this gives us any better chance in the ultimate issue, except maybe slightly, in that the trying judge, looking at the full record, will realize that the diocese is not an organization whose word can be trusted.
And also — perhaps I have overestimated the legal skill the diocese and the ACoC will bring to these proceedings. Failiing to pay half of the building costs was legally crazy. Smart thing to do would be to pay their half share; smarter still to pay the whole thing, bill us for half, and not worry much about whether we paid or not, until the right moment in court came, to show that (if we hadn’t paid up) we were the deadbeats.
Toral
I wonder if this is just a reflection of how the diocese runs their regular affairs. Seeing how the banks have behaved to them and the carnage re closing of churches perhaps it is so?