Consider when the words you hear from the Diocese of Niagara are of tolerance, inclusion, listening and diversity, the actions speak of something very different.
This particular story revolves around legal costs the Diocese was seeking to reclaim. As mentioned in the Journal article here:
Ms. Chang said the diocese is claiming about $200,000 in costs for that hearing. “The reason there has been a delay is for the judge to receive submissions only on one issue and that is whether or not whatever cost award is made is against the wardens in their personal capacity or as trustees and representatives of the congregation,” said Ms. Chang. “We say it should be awarded against them in their capacity as trustees on behalf of the congregation. There’s no way that if we win the case that the wardens are going to end up with the property personally, there’s no way that they are going to end up with the assets personally, so to suggest that they should be liable for the costs personally is really shameful.”
The Diocese subsequently decided to sue the wardens in a personal capacity. Even if you accept the Diocese’s legal claims on face value, what is the purpose for suing the wardens personally? If it’s solely about the money, then why not sue the wardens as trustees? This appears rather to be an intimidation tactic.
On Wednesday, the Diocese got what they were after, although more in the order of $75,000 than the $237,000 claimed.
This tactic is hardly unique, as can be seen in California where:
individual members of the vestry of Saint James Newport Beach are being sued by the Diocese of Los Angeles for $500,000 a piece in legal fees for a total of $6 million being sought by the diocese.
Fortunately in that case the hostile nature of the suit was recognised and the case dismissed.
UPDATE from the ANiC newsletter:
Three ANiC parishes’ Wardens and Clergy in Southern Ontario faced with $75K bill
Madam Justice Milanetti issued her judgement, awarding the Diocese of Niagara over $75,000 in court costs following the March 20 hearing; the diocese had requested $236,893.03. The legal decision can be seen on St Hilda’s website. This award has been made against the clergy and churchwardens who have been sued by the diocese, even though it is clear they are representing their congregations. If the ANiC Legal Fund does not raise the money to pay these costs, the wardens and clergy face personal consequences. Please pray that the funds will be raised quickly.
What “personal consequences”? Just wondering how far this tyrannical diocese will go. . .
The “personal consequences” for the wardens are that, if the awarded costs are not or cannot be covered by ANiC or the parishes, the assets of the individuals would be used.
Incidentally, another disgusting antic that the diocese is engaged in is attempting to get its hands on the rectory. This has not come up in any of the court proceedings, but the dio wants us (St. Hilda’s in this case) to put rent money in a trust on the assumption that they will end up owning all the property.
It is totally disgusting that the diocese would take such action and even more disgusting to see that lawyers acted for them – so much for the integrity of many in the legal profession. We can be thankful that we have lawyers with integrity for the Network.
I was waffling about whether or not to contribute to the legal fund. I am not waffling any more.
Go online and ask for help from other sympathetic websites. Don’t be shy, people are glad to help a cause they support.
I wouldn’t stop there, though. Go to the media, though not any that are likely to be biased against your cause. Go to the Toronto Sun, to talk radio, to Michael Coren. He might mention you in a column or even have you on his TV show. Go to impartial media outlets like the Spectator and Beaver. Get the word out, and donations may well follow.
And so will publicity. “Diocese of Niagara sues individual laypeople” is not a headline you’ll ever see in Anglican Pravda — it isn’t so great for their evangelism. But it might show up somewhere else.
Vengence is mine saith the Lord. Do you think that these unrighteous bishops think they are the avenging arm of the Lord. I am sure God has his eyes on their infamous deeds and one day justice will prevail, if there is no repentance
“This award has been made against the clergy and churchwardens who have been sued by the diocese, even though it is clear they are representing their congregations.”
Well, those individuals were named as parties because they’re the ones claiming to be true wardens of the parishes and therefore rightful trustees. It would have undermined the ANiC case for them to seek standing as officers of newly constituted orthodox entitites (although that would have insulated them personally from exposure to the associated liability).
I’ve advised against this legal strategy from day one so I’m not about to pay for it. Nevertheless, I do admire the wardens’ courage and hope their supporters will step up now so that the legally named parties aren’t forced to mortgage or liquidate personal assets in order to pay the other side’s legal costs.
The key word is “trustee”. It is an act of vindictiveness to go after them personally, when they were obviously acting on behalf of their parishes.
#8 Kate:
I wouldn’t presume to see into the other side’s hearts to judge their motives, vindictive or otherwise.
However, I do agree that “trustee” is the key word and crux of this matter.
I wasn’t talking about looking into someone else’s heart. I was talking about someone else’s actions.
“Actions speak louder than words.”
Though their words are getting somewhat more. . . blatant, too.
Wonder if the Ontario judge has seen some of the comments about her on various other blogs.
Not a good idea to call someone “biaised and arrogant” if they are considering a case against you!
A good judge wouldn’t be reading the blogs that are discussing the case she has to decide.
Maybe not, but the other side’s lawyers will.
Remember Mr George Macintosh, QC, counsel for the diocese of New Westminster and bishop, suggesting that Dr Stackhouse, appearing as a witness for ANiC lacked “independence” in his “expert” opinions based upon a blog he had written and posted on March 7, 2008 where he referred to Michael Ingham as “a heretic and schismatic (by the standard definitions of those terms)” who promotes “crypto-Hinduism”? This was only last week…
It is very common in civil cases to name both a corporation and its directors together as liable in a suit. In this case it seems that the individuals did not state that they were trustees for ANiC in their court filings, and the judge decided against allowing that amendment at the 11th hour. So the costs are awarded against those individuals.
I expect that the generosity of their (and our) community will cover this expense for them. I also don’t think the diocese of Niagara is doing themselves any real favours with the court by using high priced help and trying to recover unrelated costs.
I suppose, but I was responding to the comment about it not being wise to annoy the judge with our comments on the blog. I don’t see how the lawyers reading our unflattering opinions about Judge Milanetti will have any bearing on the case at all.
If it is someone involved with the case, they might be in contempt.
#[17],
Jonathon/Joanne, stick to the same name please, as per this.
While not in ANiC, as a warden myself, I feel obliged to donate.
This legal strategy indicates to me that wardens need to investigate the equivalent of Directors & Officers Liability Insurance – that’s going to be expensive.