Dana De Sante

The applicants sought declarations regarding the governance and operations of the Mount Pleasant Group of Cemeteries (MPGC), a statutory trust established in 1826.

The court granted the applicants public interest standing and found that MPGC's directors had not been validly appointed since 1987, as they failed to comply with the mandatory election procedures in the 1849 Act.

The court declared that MPGC holds its assets as a charitable trust and that its operation of visitation centres and funeral homes exceeded its statutory objects.

The court declined to order a formal investigation under the Charities Accounting Act but appointed the seven most senior directors as trustees, subject to confirmation at a public meeting.

The moving party, a local resident, brought a motion for leave to intervene as an added party or friend of the court in an application concerning the sale of a charitable property operated as a tennis and aquatic club.

The main parties to the application had reached a settlement to sell the property and divide the proceeds among charitable purposes.

The court dismissed the motion to intervene, finding that while the moving party had an interest in the subject matter, her intervention would not significantly enhance the court's ability to determine the issues, as her position mirrored that of the applicants and the Public Guardian and Trustee was already involved.

Furthermore, granting intervenor status would cause undue delay and prejudice to the parties who had already reached a settlement.

Following a trial regarding the closure of a church and distribution of its assets, the court determined the distribution of funds held in court to selected charities and assessed costs.

The court awarded the respondents substantial indemnity costs of $60,000 due to the reprehensible conduct of one of the applicants, who was found in breach of trust.

The court ordered $20,000 of the costs to be paid from the funds held in court, with the remaining $40,000 apportioned between the applicants, holding the primary litigator responsible for the substantial indemnity portion.