The United Church of Canada argument respecting congregation properties of the former Presbyterian Church as found in bylaw section 266 (a) interprets the provincial statutes incorporating the Board of Trustees of the Presbyterian Church in Canada as vesting a reversionary interest in such property in the denomination [reversionary interest means that the denomination has an interest in the property if the congregation ceases to exist] per

where The United Church of Canada Act reads

[reference to the provincial Act is important as property is the jurisdiction of the provincial not the federal government], though the Basis of Union {Schedule A} omits reference to "and in which the denomination to which such congregation belongs has no right or interest, reversionary or otherwise"

despite the Presbyterian Church in Canada not interpreting its incorporation as in any sense changing the rights respecting congregation property for any congregation which shall not have ceased to exist or become disorganized [as at present with the continuing Presbyterian Church in Canada].

The United Church of Canada argument and the Supreme Court of Ontario response is summed up succinctly in Aird v. Johnson [1929] 4 D.L.R 664

or with the Supreme Court of Canada response in Ferguson v. MacLean 1930 S.C.R. 630, quoting one of the judges

to the effect that the legislators, as interpreted by the respective Supreme Courts of the Province and Dominion, did not intend the section incorporating the Board of Trustees of the former Presbyterian Church in Canada

to operate on the interests of the congregation for properties which otherwise would be excepted per sections six and eight of the Provincial and Dominion Acts respectively.

So simply [it has not been simple thus far] the Supreme Courts declared the interpretation of The United Church of Canada Act is what a person not familiar with the argument reads in the Basis of Union article 5.4

And if the Supreme Court says "no" the church may not continue to make the same argument, but the United Church of Canada continued to make the same argument because nobody noticed until nobody remembered [though with the final research and drafting of the request for ruling and the resulting appeal discovered "there are too many libraries...", the church can't hide this forever -- for example source document for a microfiche of damaged Quebec Statutes held by the National Archives of Canada was from a Pennsylvania library].

The United Church of Canada Act authorized only lawful acts or things, of which requirement the Basis of Union may not be inconsistent, making bylaw(s) following the Supreme Court interpretations which were otherwise ultra vires the church and, not having complied with its own requirement respecting conference(s) approval before legislating [passing bylaws] on all matters respecting property, affecting every bylaw related to matters of property.

As requested in my appeal

...Erskine and American United Church recently amalgamated with another congregation, with Montreal Presbytery requiring a substantial amount of the sale of the property for its own purposes though advised of the above. American Presbyterian Church came into the United Church of Canada from the Presbytery of New York by special action of the first General Council in 1925 as recorded in the Record of Proceedings 1925 pp.3, 7, 16, 63, 66 and even by the United Church of Canada argument was not subject to the Quebec Act incorporating the Presbyterian Church in Canada.
...the deficiencies have been recited from an early date so as to be constructive to the thought, interpretation, directives, and history of the church.