Comments on: Day 11 – ANiC Parishes v Diocese of New Westminster – June 11, 2009

By: Cheryl Chang

Cheryl Chang — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 16:14:46 +0000

Henry #5 – The parishes are the Plaintiffs because they applied to court for clarification as to who the proper Trustees of the parishes are, AFTER the diocese took “self-help” measures by unilaterally declaring they had dismissed the Trustees of 2 of the parishes (1. St. Matthew’s and 2. St. Matthias and St. Luke), and advised the bank they had appointed new signatories to the parish bank accounts, which caused the banks to freeze the accounts. Only the courts have the jurisdiction to resolve who the proper Trustees are and who will have access to the parish funds. The diocese had ordered the priests out of the building “and those who may choose to follow him”, but later wrote to the Trustees and congregation expressing “hope” they would continue to worship in the building under the new leadership.

The diocese acted against only 2 parishes, although the grounds for acting in the way they did were (more or less) identical in all 4 parishes. The 4 parishes decided to act together in seeking direction from the courts as the decisions would affect all 4 of them. The parishes have maintained unity since 2002 and continue to do so.

I hope that helps to clarify.

Cheryl

By: Henry Troup

Henry Troup — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 16:46:15 +0000

btw, would the legal citation not properly be the reverse of the thread title – the plaintiff’s name comes first. The parishes aren’t suing the diocese, surely?

By: Gordon Arthur

Gordon Arthur — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 20:58:35 +0000

I do wonder if at the end of all the case New Westminster will think all this was worth it. ANiC’s case was entirely justified, but I don’t see a scenario where the Diocese comes out ahead, win or lose.

By: Zena

Zena — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 14:07:41 +0000

I should amend #2 – for all of the trial – knowing there were days they weren’t in court.

By: Zena

Zena — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 14:06:41 +0000

I second Irena (#1) and thank Cheryl for a great, and I am sure tiring, job of attending, and then writing, for most of the three weeks of the trial.

By: Irena

Irena — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 07:33:14 +0000

Cheryl said: “I also want to say that our legal counsel were absolutely outstanding and that we could not have asked for a more dedicated, hard-working, and godly team of lawyers, including their staff and students.”

I want to heartily second her statement because it reflects exactly what I’ve been saying to everyone. What a privilege it was to observe these dedicated and Godly people (including Cheryl) at work in the courtroom! When I drive by the courthouse now, I derive joy from the knowledge that our legal team represented us there cogently and passionately all the while maintaining a winsome and Godly demeanour.

Whether we win or lose the buildings at the end of all this, there is no doubt in my mind that Christ was glorified.