Fabrication vs Fact
Appeal Decision Analysis
In May 2020, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled on the Decision of the Ontario Superior Court which had agreed with Friends' interpretation of the 1871 legislation governing Mount Pleasant Group of Cemeteries. From the beginning, MPGC refused to meet with Friends or to even acknowledge its existence, choosing rather to believe that the significant governance issues raised by Friends and affirmed by both levels of Court, were an 'unimportant local issue'. As result MPGC's tone and behaviour throughout the process and to this day remain inexplicably adversarial.
The claim against MPGC dealt solely with its governance since the early 1990s. While the three-judge panel of the Ontario Court of Appeal, through the 'living tree' philosophy of law, agreed with the current Board selection process, significantly it did not agree with MPGC's assertions about it having become a "private commercial cemetery", nor did it agree that MPGC could unilaterally ignore the Legislature which had created it.
Despite MPGC's claims, the Court of Appeal decision agreed with Friends that it could no longer be 'business as usual' for MPGC.
Why we created this page
MPGC's website continues to propagate the same fabrications that guided their "position" in Court.
This page will set the record straight.
It is also important to note that the law considers some of these fabrications to be defamatory outside of the Court room (where unfortunately "anything goes") and they have been the subject of a libel claim against MPGC.
What are the Mount Pleasant Group of Cemeteries?
Contrary to its claims, MPGC is not the owner of the 10 cemeteries it operates. In fact Friends was successful in confirming in Court that the Government of Ontario is the real owner of these lands, on behalf of the public. The community-minded individuals who first created the cemeteries in the 1800s did not do so for themselves or to make a profit, but to meet the public health needs of what was then the City of Toronto.
From these beginnings, MPGC continued to expand with the population of the city. Today, it oversees more than 1,200 acres worth over $3 billion. However MPGC enjoys significant advantages over other cemeteries, consistent with its public trust status. It pays no income taxes, at either the provincial or federal level. It pays no property taxes either. Whereas other cemeteries and funeral homes keep 50% of their net profits, MPGC gets to keep it all. This is because of its special legislation.
The MPGC Board of Directors went further to pass special bylaws, to allow themselves and no one else to be able to keep these profits, even on dissolution. Over the last 20 plus years, we have watched the public purpose of the cemeteries slowly disappear. Prices have risen astronomically. Consumers complain without recourse. MPGC became predatory towards other bereavement sector players, making entry by funeral homes and monument companies to the cemeteries difficult. One former MPGC Board member even claimed that the Board had "parted ways with the trust"!
Thank goodness the Court said "Not so fast"!
A Brief History of the Legal Dispute
In order to correct the factual record on MPGC's website, it's important to note that at the time of the Visitation Centre and the Crematorium disputes involving MPGC:
1. Friends of Toronto Public Cemeteries did not exist;
2. The members of Friends were not involved, or for some even aware of these disputes;
3. The members of Friends had not yet met each other!
For the record, in 2006 the City of Toronto opposed the construction of a Visitation Centre at the Mount Pleasant Cemetery due to its proposed encroachment on significant green space. This followed MPGC's refusal to engage in any public consultation on the project, likely due to the fact that none of the local communities supported it. MPGC continues to propagate the lie that the City of Toronto supported its construction along with most citizens while a small group did not. The record is public and clear. No one supported this project, and it was MPGC that brought its challenge to the OMB to try to overturn the City of Toronto's refusal. Unfortunately as often happens at the OMB, the City's objections were rejected.
In December 2011 following MPGC's announcement that it would be upgrading its existing crematorium facilities at Mount Pleasant Cemetery, once again without any public consultation ("what's the point in consulting on a decision that's already been made?" replied MPGC Board Chair Diane Cabot when asked for community consultation). The "new and improved" crematorium equipment, imported from Europe, was as yet untested, and required barrels of toxic waste to be removed by truck through a residential neighbourhood! Thankfully local City Councillor Kristyn Wong-Tam took it on herself to independently challenge the Ministry of the Environment's decision to allow the installation of untested incineration technology a mere 18 feet from the closest residential home.
While all of this may be interesting as a hallmark of the litigiousness and aggressivity of MPGC, it has no relationship whatsoever to the actual Court case brought by Friends.
Appeal Decision Analysis
In May 2020, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled on the Decision of the Ontario Superior Court which had agreed with Friends' interpretation of the 1871 legislation governing Mount Pleasant Group of Cemeteries. From the beginning, MPGC refused to meet with Friends or to even acknowledge its existence, choosing rather to believe that the significant governance issues raised by Friends and affirmed by both levels of Court, were an 'unimportant local issue'. As result MPGC's tone and behaviour throughout the process and to this day remain inexplicably adversarial.
The claim against MPGC dealt solely with its governance since the early 1990s. While the three-judge panel of the Ontario Court of Appeal, through the 'living tree' philosophy of law, agreed with the current Board selection process, significantly it did not agree with MPGC's assertions about it having become a "private commercial cemetery", nor did it agree that MPGC could unilaterally ignore the Legislature which had created it.
Despite MPGC's claims, the Court of Appeal decision agreed with Friends that it could no longer be 'business as usual' for MPGC.
Why we created this page
MPGC's website continues to propagate the same fabrications that guided their "position" in Court.
This page will set the record straight.
It is also important to note that the law considers some of these fabrications to be defamatory outside of the Court room (where unfortunately "anything goes") and they have been the subject of a libel claim against MPGC.
What are the Mount Pleasant Group of Cemeteries?
Contrary to its claims, MPGC is not the owner of the 10 cemeteries it operates. In fact Friends was successful in confirming in Court that the Government of Ontario is the real owner of these lands, on behalf of the public. The community-minded individuals who first created the cemeteries in the 1800s did not do so for themselves or to make a profit, but to meet the public health needs of what was then the City of Toronto.
From these beginnings, MPGC continued to expand with the population of the city. Today, it oversees more than 1,200 acres worth over $3 billion. However MPGC enjoys significant advantages over other cemeteries, consistent with its public trust status. It pays no income taxes, at either the provincial or federal level. It pays no property taxes either. Whereas other cemeteries and funeral homes keep 50% of their net profits, MPGC gets to keep it all. This is because of its special legislation.
The MPGC Board of Directors went further to pass special bylaws, to allow themselves and no one else to be able to keep these profits, even on dissolution. Over the last 20 plus years, we have watched the public purpose of the cemeteries slowly disappear. Prices have risen astronomically. Consumers complain without recourse. MPGC became predatory towards other bereavement sector players, making entry by funeral homes and monument companies to the cemeteries difficult. One former MPGC Board member even claimed that the Board had "parted ways with the trust"!
Thank goodness the Court said "Not so fast"!
A Brief History of the Legal Dispute
In order to correct the factual record on MPGC's website, it's important to note that at the time of the Visitation Centre and the Crematorium disputes involving MPGC:
1. Friends of Toronto Public Cemeteries did not exist;
2. The members of Friends were not involved, or for some even aware of these disputes;
3. The members of Friends had not yet met each other!
For the record, in 2006 the City of Toronto opposed the construction of a Visitation Centre at the Mount Pleasant Cemetery due to its proposed encroachment on significant green space. This followed MPGC's refusal to engage in any public consultation on the project, likely due to the fact that none of the local communities supported it. MPGC continues to propagate the lie that the City of Toronto supported its construction along with most citizens while a small group did not. The record is public and clear. No one supported this project, and it was MPGC that brought its challenge to the OMB to try to overturn the City of Toronto's refusal. Unfortunately as often happens at the OMB, the City's objections were rejected.
In December 2011 following MPGC's announcement that it would be upgrading its existing crematorium facilities at Mount Pleasant Cemetery, once again without any public consultation ("what's the point in consulting on a decision that's already been made?" replied MPGC Board Chair Diane Cabot when asked for community consultation). The "new and improved" crematorium equipment, imported from Europe, was as yet untested, and required barrels of toxic waste to be removed by truck through a residential neighbourhood! Thankfully local City Councillor Kristyn Wong-Tam took it on herself to independently challenge the Ministry of the Environment's decision to allow the installation of untested incineration technology a mere 18 feet from the closest residential home.
While all of this may be interesting as a hallmark of the litigiousness and aggressivity of MPGC, it has no relationship whatsoever to the actual Court case brought by Friends.
