Info on 2011 Holy Land Pilgrimage

The Old Archives

« What is Christian courage? | Main | The Gospel According to the Beatles »

April 07, 2008


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


From +Jim's statement:

"The injunction was granted based upon an addition to the March 3rd, 2008, Agreed Joint Statement made
between Sharon Hayton, Andrew Hewlett and the Diocese of British Columbia. This Agreed Joint Statement
(without the addition) is published on the web sites of both the Diocese of British Columbia and the Canadian Network.

"The addition reads, 'Until the process regarding the property issue has been resolved, or the parties agree to terminate this arrangement, the “Anglican Network” congregation led by Mrs. Hayton and Mr. Hewlett will
continue to use the building of St. Mary of the Incarnation, Metchosin.'

. . . .

"I believe that the Court in the person of Mr. Justice Sigurdson has been misdirected by the Counsel for the
Network and given information which was not available to me or the Synod of the Diocese of British


If this is accurate, a number of things come into play.

First of all, it gives a primae facie basis for appeal.

Second (after a quick consult with a lawyer of my acquaintance), the insertion of an unagreed addition to an agreed statement with the implication that it had been agreed by the other party could result in disciplinary action against the lawyer involved on the grounds of "sharp practice" or possibly "professional misconduct.

Third, the courts would likely take a very dim view of such tactics. In the event an appeal of the injunction were to find for the diocese, it is very likely that costs would be assessed against the party which misled the court with such an insertion - possibly even compelling the "Southern Cone" parishioners to cover the solicitor costs of the diocese.

If this is true - and it's still an if - then it was an utterly boneheaded move on the part of the Network congregation and their counsel.


Malcolm, without wanting to say more, you note precisely the reasons that should make you look twice at the statement.

Read it in full and you will notice it is parsed very carefully - to suggest something without actually saying it.

Whether you agree with ANiC or not, does it not seem unlikely that they would resort to such a "boneheaded" move?

Perhaps this says something more about the Diocese of BC...


Actually, it didn't look the least bit parsed to me. It looked pretty much like an out and out accusation.

That said, there is boneheadedness enough to go around on all sides of this present unpleasantness.


I would use stronger words to describe a bishop engaged in a mediation with his Metropolitan to sculk around at twilight on a Friday night with locksmiths & alarm installers but will not go there as the sad man needs our prayers.

God Bless the congregation & deposed clergy of St Mary's wherever location they end up and are freed up to do the Kingdom's work.

I shake my head at the clergy whom appear in denial regarding the spiritual drift of our church and will not voice a peep as their fellow clergy are brutally sacked.


Anyone have a link to the Agreed Joint Statement? I couldn't find it on the diocesan website. Thx.


Alex. This seems to be it. Long url so I snipped it.


Susan, thanks.

Call me crazy, but I'm having some serious difficulty understanding the issue here. The joint statement reads:

"On behalf of the Diocese of British Columbia, Archdeacon Bryant-Scott has agreed to the continued use of the building of St. Mary of the Incarnation, Metchosin by the Anglican Network congregation pending further discussions with The Most Reverend Terry Buckle."

The "Addition" (was the full text with the addition published anywhere, or just with the courts?), according to the BC Diocese website reads:

"Until the process regarding the property issue has been resolved, or the parties agree to terminate this arrangement, the "Anglican Network" congregation led by Mrs. Hayton and Mr. Hewlett will continue to use the building of St. Mary of the Incarnation, Metchosin."

Sounds to me like they are saying very similar things. But again, I'm called crazy. Any idea what happened in the time between the March 3 statement and the court proceedings? On a side note, the Joint Statement says that they will seek an alternative to litigation. Thankfully changing the locks isn't moving things along towards litigation. Oh well....

Changing locks in the middle of the night. Unilaterally adding to "Joint Statements". We are on course for something, and it ain't good.

Just when the Residential Schools lawsuit was settled without bankrupting the Anglican church, we can look forward to lawsuits within the Anglican church bankrupting the Anglican church. I think I'd rather be a bonehead than an Anglican.....



Another thought..... Per the BC Diocese:

"They had continued to worship at the St. Mary of the Incarnation site even though they were fully aware that the property belonged to the Synod of the Diocese of British Columbia, and that this action would be taken at some point. Bishop Cowan decided to allow them use of the site until after the Easter weekend."

Did the parishoners know this action would be taken at some point? Or did the bishop just assume they knew?


The parties met with +Terry Buckle mid-March, together with the Provincial Chancellor. I understand they discussed alternatives to litigation.
From Andrew Hewlett's response after the discovery of the changed locks, I think it's clear they (the parish) were working on the basis that negotiations hadn't concluded. +James would appear to have had a different understanding.

The comments to this entry are closed.

September 2011

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30  

blank stare...

  • Copyright Rev. Joseph Walker, St Timothy's Anglican Church

Subscribe in NewsGator Online

Your email address:

Powered by FeedBlitz

Add to My AOL