COURT FILE NO.: 06-DIV-1235
DATE: 2007-02-22
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
BYERS, AITKEN, SEDGWICK JJ.
B E T W E E N:
MARILYN DONOGHUE, JIM DONOGHUE, PATRICK GILLIN, ART CUENCO, MICHAEL VALIQUETTE, GORDON HILCHIE, FRANCOIS RICHER, M. MICHAELENA McLAUGHLIN, STEVEN ROSE, CHRIS FINNERTY and ANN YOUNG
Patrick Murray, for the Applicants
Applicants
- and -
THE ROMAN CATHOLIC EPISCOPAL CORPORATION OF OTTAWA and ARCHBISHOP MARCEL GERVAIS representing the ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHDIOCESE OF OTTAWA
Marc R. Labrosse, for the Respondents
Respondents
HEARD: February 14th, 2006
BY THE COURT:
[1] The Applicants are parishioners of St. Brigid’s Catholic Church in Ottawa and members of the Task Force to save St. Brigid’s Church.
[2] They want to save their church.
[3] That their church is worth saving is beyond question. St. Brigid’s has a long history of service to its members and to the community at large.
[4] In May of 2006, the Archbishop of Ottawa decided to transfer the parish priest, to suppress St. Brigid’s parish and to dispose of the church, rectory and contents. The Applicants want this Court to quash these decisions.
[5] The Applicants concede that the Archbishop, by virtue of his position in the church and the authority given to him under canon law, can do what he did. Their real complaint in this case is the way he did it. They say that his decision came as a complete surprise to them. He may well have followed the rules of the church but he didn’t follow the rules of natural justice. In particular, they didn’t get a hearing and that’s just not fair.
[6] So this is an application for judicial review under the provisions of the Judicial Review Procedures Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. J.1.
[7] The issues for this Court are:
Can we intervene?
If so, should we intervene?
Can we intervene?
[8] In order for this Court to intervene and review them, the decisions attacked must come from a public (usually statutory) body in the exercise of a statutory power of decision making authority. And the decision itself must affect someone’s property or civil rights. Martineau v. Matsqui Institution, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 602, 628.
[9] And so the decision of a school board to close a school is reviewable.
[10] But the Roman Catholic Church is not a creature of statute nor is it a public body or authority.
[11] It is true that title to St. Brigid’s Church is held by the Respondent Episcopal Corporation created by a statute many years ago. But that statute simply provided a legal mechanism for the Corporation to hold land. The decision to close St. Brigid’s was not made under that statute. It was authorized pursuant to the private canon law of the church itself. And membership in St. Brigid’s is voluntary. Parishioners acquire no property or civil rights by reason of their membership. It follows that no property or civil rights of the parishioners are affected by the decision to close their church.
[12] In our view, therefore, this Court has no jurisdiction to intervene and this application should therefore be dismissed.
- Even if we could intervene, should we?
[13] The root of the problem is money. St. Brigid’s needs a lot of money to effect repairs to keep going. It doesn’t have it and, despite years of hard work by the parishioners, it has been able to raise less than ten percent (10%) of the required amount. The parishioners present no plan to change that hard reality in the future. Without an enormous injection of new money, St. Brigid’s cannot survive. There is really no dispute about that.
[14] The Applicants argue that the Archbishop’s letter of June 1st, 2005, amounted to a change from his then plan to close the church if sufficient monies for repairs and renovations could not be found. And they further argue that this change created an obligation on the Archbishop to hold a public meeting before any decision about closure could be made.
[15] No such public meeting was ever held although the Archbishop did meet with the church council in April 2006.
[16] It may well be that the Archbishop should have held such a meeting. Perhaps if he had, we would not be in court today.
[17] But canon law does not require it.
[18] In any event, a fair reading of all the correspondence between the parties dating back to 2002 makes plain that no such change of plan ever took place. If anything, the Archbishop kept extending his deadline for closure in hopes that the monies could be found. But the real threat of closure never changed.
[19] So we are asked to intervene in a matter of church canon law and to order a public hearing when such a hearing is not required by canon law and when, on the evidence of this case, it likely would not change the result.
[20] A public hearing will not save this church. Only money can do that. Therefore the Application is dismissed. Under all the circumstances no order will be made as to costs.
BYERS, J.
AITKEN, J.
SEDGWICK, J.
Released: February 22, 2007
COURT FILE NO.: 06-DIV-1235
DATE: 2007-02-20
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
BYERS, AITKEN AND SEDGWICK JJ.
B E T W E E N:
MARILYN DONOGHUE, JIM DONOGHUE, PATRICK GILLIN, ART CUENCO, MICHAEL VALIQUETTE, GORDON HILCHIE, FRANCOIS RICHER, M. MICHAELENA McLAUGHLIN, STEVEN ROSE, CHRIS FINNERTY and ANN YOUNG
Applicants
- and –
THE ROMAN CATHOLIC EPISCOPAL CORPORATION OF OTTAWA and ARCHBISHOP MARCEL GERVAIS representing the ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHDIOCESE OF OTTAWA
Respondents
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Released: February 22, 2007