Response to Renfrew Presbytery 19/02/08
appended request 18/09/07

Or simply, the church can't make decision arguing property is not directly affected and then continue to treat the same property as directly affected.

I rise on a point of order.

The motion before presbytery is ultra vires per
. appendix iii 7 (c)

. estoppel

The motion(s) before presbytery is therefore ultra vires the presbytery.


71 Blackburn Road RR6
Renfrew, Ontario
K7V 3Z9
613-433-8227
rev@magma.ca
September 18, 2007

Karen McLean
Secretary
Renfrew Presbytery
79 Wilson W
Perth, Ontario
K7H 2N7

Karen

re request the support of Renfrew Presbytery with respect to the justice of using "not directly affected by the ruling" in dismissing Appeal of Ruling 06-009-R

appended
Judicial Committee Executive Decision
Judicial Committee Executive minutes 27/11/06
     Appeal of Ruling 06-009-R

I request the support of Renfrew Presbytery with respect to formally questioning the justice of using "not directly affected by the ruling" in dismissing Appeal of Ruling 06-009-R [similar request was made to the former chair of presbytery 18/12/06 and with faxes to presbytery 15/01/07 {not received}, 10/04/07, and 28/08/07]:

Ruling 06-009-R is about the static disposition of certain properties, whether those properties are held under the provisions of section 5.3 or section 5.4 of the basis

"...the situation raised by Reverend Anderson" is about the static disposition of certain properties, whether legally those properties are held under the provisions of section 5.3 of the basis

without the ruling or appeal making any reference to "leaving"; and

the Trusts of Model Deed gives settled order of ministry status of being directly affected by a matter relating to property

policy documents of the United Church of Canada caution trustees of personal liability if they are negligent with respect to insurance [cf. Congregational Board of Trustees Handbook 2004 p. 30, Financial Handbook for Congregations 2006 p. 116], the Insurance Act of Ontario reading

appeal deficiencies passed by the 38th General Council specifically include "an appeal may be dismissed arbitrarily by citing the appellant is not eligible to appeal" with requirement that the deficiency be addressed [rop 2003 pp. 55, 94, 186, 815]; and where

no other party, including conference(s) for which cc was delayed, was made aware of the ruling within the time required to appeal [cf. as of 14/06/07 the Executive Secretary of Bay of Quinte Conference had not received formal notification of the ruling];

leave question of the justice of using "not directly affected by the ruling" to dismiss hearing the appeal.

As the rights and responsibilities of settled order of ministry are "directly affected" by matters relating to property and no other party was made aware of the ruling within the time required to appeal, the support of Renfrew Presbytery is requested with respect to formally questioning the justice of using "not directly affected by the ruling" in dismissing Appeal of Ruling 06-009-R.





Don Anderson


December 11, 2006



Don Anderson
R. R. #6
71 Blackburn Road
Renfrew, Ontario
K7V 3Z9

Dear Reverend Anderson:

Re: Appeal from General Secretary's Ruling 06-009-R

Your appeal from the General Secretary's Ruling was considered by the Judicial Committee Executive at its meeting last Monday, November 27, 2006.

The Executive considered section 076(a) which requires that "An Appeal may be made only by a person or a Court directly affected by the Decision or ruling," The Executive reached the conclusion that you are not directly affected by the ruling and, as a result, have no status to appeal it.

Yours sincerely,



Charles Huband
Acting Chair
Judicial Committee Executive

Cc: Jim Sinclair, General Secretary, General Council


5. Anderson appeal from General Secretary's Ruling 06-009-R

Acting Chair Austin withdrew as did John Hamilton and the General Secretary, Jim Sinclair. Charles Huband assumed the Chair for this portion of the meeting.

The discussion commenced around the issue of standing to bring the appeal. The Executive sought and received clarification that there is not at the present time a congregation which is in the situation raised by Reverend Anderson. The Executive agreed that if a congregation might fall within the exception to section 266(a) it might make the argument which is raised in the appeal.

Motion: Green/Gaudin that since Reverend Anderson is not directly affected he has no status to proceed with the appeal of this Ruling.
CARRIED

6. Adjournment

Motion: there being no other business, the meeting of the Judicial Committee Executive be adjourned.
CARRIED


Charles Huband, Chair
Kathy McDonald, Secretary